Oowh yeah the Gangster's CL died in some event

my grandfather made this mistake in his youth as a made man, he accidently killed an inactive sponsored gangster, i know you may feel that it can't be an accident but honestly it was. My boss killed me for this act after i admitted it, i was upset that i had died but did not blame my boss as he had to do what was politically right in this thing of ours because if every leader just disregarded life and let his members roam free our streets would be full of dead gangsters just off the boat.

We have to keep the peace. but he realistic here what life is worth more a gangsters or a made man or above? or are they not even equal.

Dillinger, stop talking crap will you.

Tie, in response to, "I don't see how you can accidentally shoot somebody in the face". As others have acknowledged, it is most definitely possible for people to make genuine errors of judgement and shoot at someone they shouldn't. That is not to excuse the act, regardless of whether it was an innocent mistake or not, they deserve punishment of course. They fucked up so they have to deal with the consequences. These things always come about through incompetency (not checking targets thoroughly enough, not double checking a target list that's been provided and so on), but there is no doubt that this type of thing can be a mistake.

Regarding the topic itself I think, for me at least, the point here is that we shouldn't necessarily have a blanket kill-all response to these scenarios. Whether it has come about through laziness, habit or what, I don't know. I think each case has to be looked at within its own context before punishments are dished out. In this case, we have a Boss being lauded by several people for his work upto this point, and a waste of space Gangster. Is it really appropriate that a Boss was killed for this? Must it always be death or nothing? There are many more means of punishment available than people seem to think.

Lets face it, the gangster's bloodline has lost little to no effort here. Ignoring any kind of financial recompense (we are all interested in money after all, aren't we?), to even demote the Boss would've been an overcompensation on effort terms alone. Of course, that's not factoring in the point that the Boss did break rules, even if by accident, or his 'prior'. There are many variables in each case, both for and against, yet people still apply a sole punishment. Death.

There's nothing wrong with someone dying for this kind of thing, but the circumstances and context should dictate the punishment, not any form of blanket ruling or habit.

To me, it's a matter of loyalty. Now, loyalty has got to be a two way street. It's hard to go to bat for somebody who won't go to bat for you.

For most of us, the impetus for joining a Family is the need for protection. You've got 48 hours of protection, but after that you're open game. The rights of protection given to sponsored gangsters are one of the fundamentals of how things work.

It's also a matter of saving face. It doesn't look very good if a leader allows his followers to be shot for target practice, even if the member in question wasn't exactly employee of the month, to say the least. Also, think of it this way. You say the life of a inactive gangster is worth more than the life of a Made Man or better, but it's not. At least, it's not to the boss who loses a member. That guy's life may have been worth a plug nickel, but that's more than the value of some guy he didn't even know, regardless of rank.

Now, I understand people feeling that killing a Boss for a gangster's life is excessive. Maybe a blood price paid to the Family and the next of kin would have been more appropriate. Still, sometimes a message has to be sent that certain things won't be tolerated. Maybe that was the motive. We can only speculate.

The shooting of IA sponsored gangstars comes up every so often for a reason, people get sloppy and they get greedy. They start to believe that they won't get caught or simply don't care enough to make sure that the gangstar isn't sponsored. I actually don't like this rule at all, for I believe in the old rules from the golden era of this thing of ours, when a Made was family and a gangstar was nothing. However, in the age we live in now this rule does serve to keep the bloodshed down and to keep most of the trigger happy people under control.

I still believe that, when hunting for IAs, you should always check to make absolutely sure that they aren't in a Family, but now that you explain how one can do it on accident, I do see your point more clearly, and thank you for clearing that up for me, Boaby. When getting caught up in the hunt, one is usually in a hurry, and just checks for tags quickly. It is a mistake that can happen to anybody, but I still feel that the punishment that was handed out, was adequate. If I ever fuck up in the same way, I hope I am stripped of my HQ, and killed.

The main reason I feel this is because, as has already been said, although it can happen by accident, if we allow it to go unpunished, people are just going to start doing it on purpose and saying, "sorry my bad, I didn't notice. Was a complete accident." and then it will become something that is considered acceptable. In my opinion, demotion isn't a good enough punishment either. If I was demoted for something I did wrong I would just consider it a chance to buy BGs at a cheaper price, and train my gun at a cheaper price. I'd just be ranked up in a couple of weeks again anyway, as long as I pretended to be sorry and act like I learned a lesson.

I feel that the punishment should always fit the crime. Death should be punished with death. I do get what you are all saying though. I'm sick of the pointless bloodshed as well, but if somebody is going to be so eager to shed blood, than they shouldn't be surprised if it turns around on them.

This being said though, I kind of want to get back to Tallien's actual topic. After listening to him again, I realize he wasn't so much saying that Vlademar didn't break a rule, he was just questioning the rule itself.I think the rule is valid, but I also do not think think it should be a blanket rule. The punishment should be decided between the perpetrator's boss, and the victim's boss. Death doesn't always have to be the option, if the two parties involved can come up with a better way that avoids death, more power to them.

Still, as I've said a couple times, I think that the punishment befits the crime, and that rank should not affect said punishment, in the case of death.

T,

I'd like to comment on this first off by saying I don't disagree with you, but at the same time I don't necessarily agree with you, either.

I almost feel like I want to be devils advocate in a sense...

In both scenarios I would have to agree that the folks, at least Java from my family, were outstanding members. I would loved to have a chat with him about it and say "hey buddy, everyone makes mistakes" and he'd probably go the rest of his life without making another mistake...and life would be grand...after all, the dead Gangster was just laying around anyway...but where do you draw the line?

Sure one time get out of jail free card and made man are the logical answers, but who's to say the Wiseguy, with his made man button and hasn't had his official ceremony yet...do we kill him? I mean hes not a made man...It was an honest mistake right?

Maybe it is just black and white. maybe there are no shades of grays...I mean these are trusted made members of a family and the others are just associates.

(Devils advocate time) "I mean these are trusted made members of a family" well then shouldn't they know better?I mean, this is a person that represents me and my family. Mistakes...potentially HUGE mistakes...won't go unnoticed. If you are training a gun to protect your family, then you should be careful about what you are shooting at, right. Shooting other families is the exact opposite of trying to keep your family safe.

IA or not, the evidence is OBVIOUS that this Gangster belongs to an organization. I would expect Wise Guy and below to not be as conscience as a Made Man and up (Using your rank system) and there for I would be more likely to understand the mistake of the lower rank person than the higher ranked person. After all the Earner doesn't know any better. Right? If you are shooting as a Made Man and up, then you are trying to better yourself to protect your family, so why wouldn't you pay attention to the FLASHING SIGN (in most cases) that's on every sponsored person back BROADCASTING the fact that they are in fact sponsored.

Again, I understand we all make mistakes. It happens. But from your arguement its just as logical to flip it and say "shouldn't we be killing the made men and above because they know better and let the goombas live because they are new to this way of life and didn't know."

I appologies if anyone talked to what I said, I was moved by the speech and didn't finish up listening to responses, I was eager to get my retort out. Great discussion Mr. Tallien.

I'm pleased to see that a lively debate has sparked from this.

To address the main points that have been raised by subsequent speakers that I don't think have been adequately addressed:

Firstly, it is so easy to make this error. Whilst it seems like it is glaringly obvious who is sponsored and who isn't, when you aren't so much as even looking at their tags in your haste to load your weapon, this is a worryingly common occurrence. Should more preparation have been exercised by the hitter? Probably. By the same token, given the finite number of targets and the seemingly numerous amount of people gunning them down, speed is everything. The extra second you take studying the profile is going to drastically limit the number of kills you get.

Secondly, regarding any perceived disrespect to a leader or captain. I can see why you would think that not avenging the death of any associate is losing face or failing your charges, but it isn't. If you hadn't turned out to be the ambitious and highly ranked chaps you are now and had instead become disinterested in our lifestyle culminating in your being deemed inactive and you had died, where would you be? This seems obvious, but you would be dead. Your child returns with either more time or more commitment and sees a Made Man or higher listed in the obituaries as a result of your parent dying.  How do you feel? Satisfied? Relieved? Protected? Ok, but now you're back where you started, with nothing to show for it. Instead, had that Made Man discussed with your employer a more appropriate means of compensation, your indignation at seeing your parent killed, would probably quickly fade, if the would be murderer hired you a couple of bodyguards to make sure the same thing didn't happen to you. Would you not feel better? Would you not now be in a better position than you could possibly have hoped to be in had this Made Man or higher just been killed? Would you now think that your Boss is a jerk or has failed you in some way by securing you these bodyguards rather than a death of a ranking member? Personally I would much rather take my compensation, the likely apology from the guilty party and set about growing my own interests. This keeping in mind that you actually returned to our shores, the majority of those mistaken kills don't.

Next, where do we draw the line? I think this is one of the bigger counter arguments to any change in policy here as it would require some intelligence and understanding from those involved. We still appear to be a little caught up with the concept of justice. If someone gets away with stealing or conning someone else, in my book, that is fair game. I'm an avid believer of if you didn't catch me, I didn't do it. The chumps with their police force and lawyers may have to all hold hands and play nice, but I most certainly don't. I can do whatever I am capable of getting away with.

What I mean by this in this context is that when in the past my ancestor made this mistake, he immediately put his hands up and went on his knees to the leader of the organization, with his own leader and tried to make reparations. He didn't hope the witness never came forward and trusted to his luck as when the witness did appear he would look extremely foolish. He, rightly believed, that if he explained to this leader what had happened, apologized and proposed a method of financial compensation to the deceased, then he shouldn't really be punished under the same rule that a lower member of an organization should. He was capable of getting away with it, because he could draw on his leader and say "I've been a flawless member, earned my badge and I'm telling the truth, I will do this, this and this to make it right. Will you support me?" Now I don't believe a Wise Guy has earned the right to turn round to his Boss and say, will you support me?

However, back to the original question of where do you draw the line? I think you have to look long and hard at yourself as a leader or part of the hierarchy of an organization. I have entrusted this member to become a Made Man, are they bullshitting me? Are they trying to pull a fast one or have they actually made one error? And to me, if you make the wrong call and they are bullshitting you, chalk one up for them for getting away with it and you need to learn the responsibility being a Made Man entails.

That is after all the underlying point in all of this. It isn't specifically this situation regarding the killing of inactive members of other organizations (although it is a common demonstration of rank being flouted) it is about the importance of the rank you're being given. It should entitle the owner of said rank to more than a bullet in these situations. They have earned more than that and deserve more than that.

I think Tie, you're also stuck in the mould that all men should be equal, which while commendable in common society, shouldn't be encouraged here. That isn't how the mafia works. An inactive Gangster should not be able to bring about the fall of a Boss in a Crime Family labeled as "an integral cog" in a City setup. It defies logic and realism.

Perhaps Odd's example is the better one to use to illustrate this as he has said himself that the man was an excellent member of his organization. The crime he committed which culminated in his death was the killing of an inactive member of the Sherlock organization. That was it. Someone who had left our shores and although I'm not certain, does not appeared to have left any kin behind to carry on their lineage. My point is this: does this Made Man deserve to die for this mistake? In my opinion, they do not. They can repair the damage in far better and meaningful ways to the leader, their own leader and the deceased's next of kin should they appear.

In many of the other scenarios however, people are doing things without their leader's knowledge, not coming clean and generally trying to pull a fast one on their leader. I'm not defending these people from the bullet. They've been caught in their own game and they aren't being killed for taking out a nobody anymore, they are being killed for trying to bullshit their leader and disrespect them and shame both their rank and their organization as a result. That to me comes back to what you think you can get away with.

Finally, I know I've rambled for a lot longer than I intended again here but this issue is dear to me, should they know better? I would rephrase that, do they know better? The answer to that question would be yes. It comes back to their intentions. If they intentionally killed a sponsored member of an organization, they aren't being killed for doing that, they are being killed for the disrespect they are showing their own leader and the leader of the other organization. However, if it is accidental, that isn't quite the same thing in my opinion. They've still broken the rule, but, should this be a rule at all for them? They didn't mean to do this after all. Most who don't come forward probably haven't realized the error they've made.

Should we kill Made Men and above who kill sponsored members of another organization intentionally? I think that depends on the manner in which they conduct themselves and how they've acted, meaning are they actually now being killed for disrespecting their Boss and their victim's Boss, i.e. important members of our world rather than Joe Nothing Gangster?

I still think they've earned the right to an explanation and the chance to defend their actions and why they've chosen to ignore a rule, even if the victim is active. In my opinion the rank we've given them, perhaps not a Made Man, but Capos and above are considered capable of running their own crews. They have to make leadership decisions sometimes and those I gift this honour to have displayed sufficient skill and judgment to have earned it. Why would it have suddenly deserted them at this juncture?

However, that isn't really the specific issue I'm raising here and I don't disagree that the punishment for breaking the rules without sufficient reason (or sometimes even with) overrules the rank of that person. But in some circumstances, like this one, I believe it should do.

~T~

Very eloquently said, Tallien. You've actually changed my viewpoint a bit. Upon listening to you go into more detail, I better understand what you're saying, and I find myself agreeing with you, at least more than I did at first. I guess the way I'm explaining myself does seem like I'm saying that everybody should be equal, but that's not really what I'm trying to say. I do realize that a Boss is extremely more important than a Gangster, and an inactive one at that. But when I say a person should be killed, no matter what the rank, I don't mean to say every rank is equal.

I do actually agree, to a degree, that a Boss shouldn't be killed because of the death of a gangster. I'm saying that the reason for his death, is because he attacked somebody from another family, and one of the first rules we learn, is not to do that, if we aren't in a war, or have good reason. But now I do realize that it isn't uncommon for a mistake to happen, especially when one is caught up in the hunt.

I am seeing your point now, he was of high-standing in his Family, and maybe that should have meant something. Obviously he had never made a mistake of that degree, previously to this one, or he would have been dead already. I do believe we need to draw the line somewhere but, after hearing more of your side of things, maybe that line should be at a second offense.

Either way, I do agree that there shouldn't be a blanket-rule. I think it should be up to the two CLs to come to an agreement on a suitable punishment.

Just one more thing I wanted to touch on, that I couldn't really fit in above. Its not so much a counter-point, as it is me wanting to hear your opinion. You said that we all aren't on equal footing in this life. That the death of a gangster, should not be a deciding factor on if a Boss lives or not. If we aren't killing the Boss, as he's more important than the gangster, why are we even punishing him in the first place? Should we not just forget about his actions, since he's in a higher standing?

I already have a counter-point to that thought out in my own head, but like I said, I just want to hear your opinion on that.

I think the thing to remember is whilst the Boss is more important than the Gangster, his leader is more important than he is and whichever way it is justified, he's still made a mistake. He doesn't deserve to die for that mistake, because to me that is ridiculous. However, he shouldn't be allowed to walk free as if no mistake was made at all, because it has been.

My own personal opinion on this is that the ranks in our world are probably given out wrongly or infer things that they shouldn't by their definition. It is unlikely for example that many criminal syndicates would have 20 Bosses, who aren't actually the Boss of anything, Capos who don't actually have their own crews etc. However, certain allowances have to be made and they become more symbolic than literal. So whilst, a Boss isn't heading their own organization, bestowing them with this rank should indicate their leader feels they are capable of doing so.

To go back to one of the earlier examples I'll try and elaborate on what I mean. Vlademar shot the Gangster in the employ of TM. He shouldn't have died for the shooting, but TM has still been slighted and inactive or not, a Gangster is still dead. Deaths in our thing are bad for business; draw unwarranted attention from those who would seek to end organized crime. Intent or not, these are the consequences of the act that can't be avoided and these are what should be punished rather than the actual act itself.

If we take the literal meaning of Vlademar's rank, I hope we will all think, whilst it wouldn't be prudent for a crew leader to eliminate another organization's Gangster, just as with any other ranking member, we wouldn't demand they died for it. Therefore, in my opinion, a Boss, without a crew should not be killed either. His rank is the same.

The reason we should not forget about his actions is to do with the consequences, things have happened that cannot be undone. Reparations need to be paid, just not with blood. Whilst he is in a high standing, his standing doesn't outweigh those of the other sponsors involved.

Hopefully that made sense.

~T~

The points that I am about to raise have already been touched upon earlier on in this discussion, but I thought I would give my two cents on this discussion.

First off, I think that this kind of mistake can be understood to a certain extent. My forefathers have also made the same mistake in the past and have paid for it with thier lives. But on the flipside of this, should people really shoot up anything and everything in sight? Surely a bit of restraint and cool would be advisable before taking a shot? A high rank (such as Boss) should be more aware of this then any other ranks below them. So would this mistake by a higher rank be classed as worse because of this?

I personally, do not believe it to be right for a person to receive a lesser sentence because of their rank. Okay, the person may have more of a political standing then say a goomba and may have made more of a positive impact on thier corresponding families, but like I mentioned before, this could be classed as a more glaring mistake because of this. The lower echelons of society look upon these people to set a good example. If these good examples are trampled on by these accidental shots, then what is stopping the lower echelons from making the same mistakes? After all, we are suppose to lead by example. Can we realistically turn around and say "well this person did the same mistake as you...but seeing as they have done more for the family....bye bye"? Personally, I wouldn't be able to make one rule for one person and one rule for another, neither would I expect anyone to do the same for me.

If we started to make exceptions, then what would these be? Would it be based purely on the rank? Where would the cut off line be? Some families hold WiseGuys etc, as RHM/RHW and LHM/LHW, would these get the same treatment as other WiseGuys in the family? Albeit they may not hold the same importance to the family they are in, they are the same rank.

Personally, I think if we started to make exceptions then it would simply become too complicated. Too many things would come into play, and would probably unravel itself to be one unholy mess. One rule for all springs to mind, and I believe that this is the notion that should be enforced. However, I understand other peoples view points and respect them.

The lower echelons of society look upon these people to set a good example. If these good examples are trampled on by these accidental shots, then what is stopping the lower echelons from making the same mistakes? After all, we are suppose to lead by example. [...] Personally, I wouldn't be able to make one rule for one person and one rule for another, neither would I expect anyone to do the same for me.

That is exactly the point, Frank, it shouldn't be one rule for everyone. What is stopping the lower echelons from making exactly the same mistakes is the fact they are from the lower echelons. They haven't yet earnt the right to be given the benefit of the doubt. In this context, they mean very little to the 'upper echelons' of cosa nostra. The point Tallien's making is that things change, or should, when it comes to dealing with more respected members of our thing who have been considered worthy of becoming Made and beyond.

I understand your point relating to the fact that if these people are so esteemed within their organisation, they should know better and that to make a mistake like this is possibly worse for someone of their standing. Perhaps you're right, but that doesn't alter the fact that they have earnt - or should have earnt, given the fact they have been given the privilege - the chance to given a little more consideration than your average Wise Guy.

Regarding your comment on leading by example, of course we all live by certain values, we've been over them a million times on these streets. However, I don't think it's necessarily the case that upper ranks have to "lead by example". I don't necessarily believe that the upper echelons, to continue using your phrase, have any responsibility to those in the lower echelons. Are we forgetting our place here? For all intents and purposes, the lower ranks are bums. They do as their highers say, not as they do.

Just because my Godfather does something, doesn't mean I can. Just because I can get away with something, doesn't mean a Goomba can. That is the importance of rank and that is the point I was making when I referred to blanket kill-all policies, they just do not fit if we are serious about our world and our "system".

To repeat what I said earlier; there's nothing wrong with someone dying for this kind of thing, but the circumstances and context should dictate the punishment, not any form of blanket ruling or habit.

nods thoughtfully

Mr. T and Jedy Boaby you guys make a very strong and valid points. Anyone else want to give their opinion? I would love to hear it.

That made perfect sense, Tallien, and thank you for giving me your view on it. You've made your point incredibly clear.

Now fully satisfied with the debate, Tie heads back to his HQ, hoping to be fully satisfied in other ways.

I honestly thought that this conversation would polarize the community more than it has. Quite surprised by the way it is going, as everyone for the most part feels that paying for your mistakes with your life is predicated on your own importance in our world. You get up every morning and start working for your family, and it doesn't matter whether it's a hundred degrees in the shade or if there's icicles hanging from the trees. You put your head down and work. You kick up to your Boss regular like, you do anything asked of you with no questions to the best of your ability, you wear your scars like a badge of honor. As time goes by you're looked at as a real mover-n-shaker. One of the Boss's "go-to" guys when the shit hits the fan. You've got the world on a string, and your family trusts you implicitly.

You know what else you do every morning? You slip that snub-nosed .38 that you filed the front sight down on into your coat pocket. Talk about a sweet little shooter, nothing to snag, seems to just jump into your hand at a moments notice. You've got more bodies on that thing than Carter's got little pills. Just the weight of it hanging and banging on your hip makes you feel good, reassured, like everything is okay in the world.

Now, you don't get to carry that pistola because you're entitled. You didn't win the Smith & Wesson lottery. It is a privilege, not something you have a right to. The day your Boss took you aside and put it in your hand you swore a blood oath to be responsible with it. You were entrusted to use it only in self-defense and in the best interests of the family. Didn't your Boss tell you to keep it in your pocket if you weren't sure of what your target's affiliations were? Didn't he ask you to run down to the drug store and drop a dime in the payphone to make double damn sure that who you were planning on using as target practice was indeed some homeless mook sleeping it off under the railroad trestle and not somebody else's property out on a week long bender? Didn't your Leader look you square in the eye and tell you not to fuck up and bring the heat down on him and shame to the family? I bet you he did. And you nodded your head and made a promise, didn't you.

Cause and effect. Consequences. Personal responsibility. You put that gun on your hip...you know the score. It all comes down to one single moment. You make a mistake. You know what is to come. The ladies and Gentlemen in my organization are expected to be professionals at all times. If they choose to train that gun then they are trusted to use it properly. They also know that they don't want to have any accidents or make a mistake. We like to refer to this as "fucking up big time". This will cost you your life. I don't want to have to deal with reparations and placing a dollar value on someone else's gangster who has gone underground. I'm not a banker. And yes, I understand the value differential between a top-earning made man and a gangster who can't pull his own weight in this thing of ours.

I'm old fashioned. I believe in personal responsibility and accountability. At least in the men and women who choose to be a part of my family. I have an obligation to them and this community to see that they become the best that they can be. Giving them an ersatz "golden parachute" and a get out of jail free card doesn't cut it for me. They don't want me to be their friend. They deserve more than that. We each know that when the chips are down we would give our lives for each other. We would never do anything to hurt the family. It's about pride and honor.

Let me see how i can put this differently. Say I have a gangster that's dead weight. He's not calling in, not dropping off payments, pretty much costing my ass. I make plans to use him for a bit of target practice, I call one of the members of my family to drop the hammer on them and make their bones. Problem is, when they get to the last known address they see the coroner hauling that vic away. Someone took it upon themselves to clean house on one of mine. Literally robbing my family of the chance to take care of our own. I don't let any of mine get away with that. I don't like it when it happens to me. Yes, it's just one little gangster who isn't contributing financially...but they still have a use. It's like I bought myself a new desk for my office. Nothing wrong with the old one, but this new one is a little bit bigger and is made from teak salvaged from Calico Jack Rackham's ship "The Revenge". That old one goes down in the basement. Maybe I'll have a son who wants to use it someday. Nothing wrong with it, remember? Only one night someone sneaks in while I'm down at the Cocoanut Grove and sees that old desk in the basement and decides to haul it away for themselves. Understandably I'm pissed off. That was my property, and I had a use for it. Luckily for me, My neighbor across the street, Jimmy "bananas" Foster sees it all happen, and got a good look at who ripped me off and knows who they work for. I call up their Boss, looking to get mys desk back, and find out that the scalawag chopped it up and chucked it in his fireplace. Of course I'm offered restitution, but I want that desk back. Too bad for me it went up in smoke. Do you see the comparison I'm trying to swing here?

Tallien, though we may differ in opinion here I believe you are sincere in your beliefs and they are not without merit. You have a left hand position in a great family. Perhaps you could use your influence to have this brought before the Leaders and ask to have it discussed. If it is accepted and you achieve quorum then perhaps you will affect a change in how business is done.

Wow, some very good points have been discussed here. I think as a whole the leaders are starting to realize that not everyone should apply to this kill all who kills rule. There are different circumstances to every scenario and at time it doesn't warrant that 'consigliere' or other said high ranker to die.

Let me draw from my own experience and that of one from another family. During the last war, this particular consigliere shot and killed a Don I had invited to my crew. Granted he was unsponsored, but everyone who needed to know, knew he was to remain untouched. Somehow he ended up meeting a bullet to his head. While I was outraged and demanded to know who did it, I had mailed the assailant asking if he had seen a murder take place. He admitted it was he who took the shot. He explained to me the reasoning behind it and I took it up with his boss. I admit that I was looking for his death at first, seeing as he shot a Don who was to be taken in by me. I spoke with his boss about the situation and ultimately left it in his hands to deal with his member as it righfully should've been left to. The dead Don's next of kin was compensated and the Consigliere was punished to my knowledge. This happening didn't result in death and both parties were dealt with and handled accordingly.

Another incident happened the same war where a sponsored Made Man killed an inactive sponsored gangster, and the Made Man wasn't ordered to die. The Made Man was simply punished according to whatever agreement those two leaders agreed upon.

My point is that, yes we've seen a lot of high ranking and trusted members dying over an accidental shooting, but lately there has been a little more leeway given to sheer mistakes. I'm in full support that if you're going to use your gun as a weapon then you should be absolutely sure about the target you are aiming for. The gun is a serious thing, and not something that just anyone should be allowed to use. Misfiring your gun should have consequences, but there are times where maybe it shouldn't result in death. I'm not saying the assailant should walk away without punishment, because there should definitely be some sort of repercussion.

Perhaps you could use your influence to have this brought before the Leaders and ask to have it discussed. If it is accepted and you achieve quorum then perhaps you will affect a change in how business is done.

Would that really be necessary, Judge? All instances of this are resolved between the two CLs involved, no one else. Quorum is not really a requirement nor particularly relevant, in my opinion.

As has been said before now, you are right that being trusted with a gun is a privilege and members are expected to conduct themselves correctly and live by our codes, but that does alter the fact that we have differentiation between ranks for a reason. I myself am "old fashioned", as you put it, when it comes to values and traditions, but I don't ever recall my ancestors or mafia historians noting that all and sundry were treated the same for their misdemeanours. Quite the opposite, which is why being Made is held in such high regard.

I think the functions of this world have come to skew our views a little in the way we view ranks, punishment and family members vs associates. Of course, we have to live within this world so need to adapt some of our ways, but surely we can at least try to be true to the value of our ranks.

As I have been saying consistently, that works two ways. If CL A is a Capo, and CL B is a Don and wants CL A's member killed for it, then CL A would be wise to follow that through if he values his family.

The point for me, again, is that this blanket kill-all, habitual response is not very appropriate when you really look at it.

I'm a busy man, and as such as I'm replying only to Tilde Tee Tilde's initial speech as I haven't found the time to listen to everyone's response. If the nature of conversation has now shifted slightly, or I'm echoing anyone's previous sentiments; I apologise!

Although I may be travelling parallel to the bulk of the topic rather than addressing it head on, I'm just going to take the opening, and in my opinion most important, sentence of this speech and spider off on a rambly tangent from there.

The <em>importance</em> of rank has been something that has largely been ignored. Not as ignored, however, as the logistics of rank. This isn't a problem to be landed squarely at the door of our current Ivory Tower residents; it's a deep rooted problem which has plagued, and I really do mean plagued, our shores for generations. In fact, more than generations. I cannot recall a time either from personal experience or through studying journals that the logistics of rank were observed. You may wonder what the fuck I'm on about, as I seem to have coined this term willy nilly; but listen on peers and privvy counsellors, and I shall explain.

What I mean by the logistics of rank is...what does a certain rank actually mean? I'm not talking in terms of honour, loyalty or any other lofty ideal that people bandy around without ever really understanding. I'm talking about...what does it mean in real terms? Where do they fit in in the pecking order of the family?

As far as I can tell, and bear in mind this may be way off the mark as I am non too proactive and not often privvy to ins and outs, Made Man is the only promotion to which a lot of attention is paid. Rightly so, a lot of vetting is undertaken before one makes the ascension to become a friend of ours. Speaking from personal experience, The Godfather of New York has certain requirements in addition to the Crewleader's blessing. I think we can all agree a stringent selection process for prospective Made Men is only ever a good thing. So why does the process stop there?

For literally as long as I can remember, and for as long as my family line has recorded, it has been almost a given that as soon as one is Made Man, the rest is expected to follow. Obviously there is still a lot of work to do; but the general accepted norm is that once one has earned his button, the natural progression to for this individual to ascend to Capo, Boss and so on.

Why? The definition of a Made Man to most is a person of undying loyalty and dedication; so Leaders do their best to ensure that only dedicated and loyal Wise Guys are given the rank. So why, when the position of Capo entails leading a small band of mobsters, do Leaders not ensure their Made Men are equipped to take on menial leadership roles?

Following this logic, Bosses should be able to handle even more responsibility, the organisation skills and intelligence to run a group of Capos. How many Leaders ensure this is the case before Joe Blogg is promoted to Boss? Finally, and the one that irks me most, how many Leaders can honestly stand here and tell me that all of their Consiglieres are implicitly trusted with Family business, included in major meetings and consulted before any decision?

And more than one Don per family? That's just ridiculous, and something I have campaigned for City Hall to abolish on more than one occasion.

So, when we take families who are largely top heavy with the big boys, this creates numerous issues. The foremost being above, that one's status is not reflected by their rank. It creates issues around social standing. A capo, to all intents and purposes, is equal to a sub crew leader; yet I imagine according to quite a few crew structures, this wouldn't be the case.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not stupid. I realise that some members must be promoted for family security, that's common sense; and I will readily admit that my line has done this, as does every Leader with a brain in his head. However to have any Capo or higher holding no position is the structure is frankly an insult, an indication that though he has been trusted with the rank, he is not trusted with the status. To me, this shows that whilst Leaders are happy to reap the monetary reward that comes with high ranking members, they are often not willing to reciprocate by placing trust in and giving responsibility to said high rankers.

Again, I must strongly reiterate that I do not believe this to be a shortcoming of the current leaders, or anyone else in particular. It's a practice that has been ingrained into the mindset of our ilk since time imemorial.

I strongly believe, and this is one of the only viewpoints my family line consistently holds, that it is this practise which creates the problem of rank and status being two totally different concepts; and it is this that is diminishing the meaning and indeed importance of rank.

But what do I know? I'm just a Made Man!

You are right, FlyingMonkey but, to refer to my previous reply (you probably haven't heard it), I think many of the issues you mention are as a result of this world and the structure in which we have to live. City hall itself makes a big distinction in the step-up to Made Man, in the fact you can buy an HQ, have an associate and so on, but the dividing lines between the ranks beyond there are more blurry.

As you say, security is one reason to promote, among others, so there's no incentive for CLs to stick to hard and fast logistical definitions. There is no real draw back to promoting beyond Made Man. Any drawbacks were accepted when the Made button was handed out in the first place.

Still, I see what you are saying and there's no doubt that the logistics of the rank, as you put it, we use aren't right. As I said before, there are some areas we're forced to adapt and some we can work around if we care enough.

Would that really be necessary, Judge? All instances of this are resolved between the two CLs involved, no one else. Quorum is not really a requirement nor particularly relevant, in my opinion.

Not necessary or relevant? You're still looking at this from a reactive point of view. Two CLs trying to reach some sort of accord over another case of mistaken identity. Both of them knowing how it is traditionally dealt with; by and large the same way by every family in every city. There is status quo, and in my opinion no one wants to be the first to change things. Let me go over what I said once again:

...use your influence to have this brought before the Leaders and ask to have it discussed. If it is accepted and you achieve quorum then perhaps you will affect a change in how business is done.

Any two individual leaders involved in a dispute like this may not want to find their actions, should they wish to go the compensation route, under scrutiny by other CLs. So instead, even though neither of them want to see any further blood shed over what has happened, they agree to execute the man who made the mistake. Status quo is preserved, nothing changes.

I have heard several people add to this discussion. I have listened to every word spoken. It leads me to conclude that the majority of people want to see the punishment change from a death sentence to a recoup of losses to the victim's next of kin and CL. If that is the case, then the only way to bring about this change is to have all of the leaders in each city sit down and openly discuss this matter amongst themselves. Do you see what I'm saying? Policy is not changed by individuals. It takes a group effort.

You have to start somewhere. Plant that seed and watch it grow.