(It's like Of Mice and Men - but mafie)

Basically, I'm intrigued by some of the scenarios thrown up by Godfathers situation, and I thought it'd be nice to get the opinions of the community on my musings. If any of the Godfathers or associated members/leaders would also like to throw in, I'd hugely appreciate the different perspective!

Firstly, anyone who's been around will know there's been more Godfathers in the past 6 months or so than in the rest of mafie history combined. Marietta, Acute, Guardian, ThomasRourke, Aurora, Premier, Odd, Vicodin, Nicky, Brick_Pollitt, JimmyTheLionHeart, Adrian. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few. Anyway, all these Godfathers...compared to Anita and Scotland.

Anyway, whichever way you look at it there's been a not so subtle shift in the dynamics of the game. Despite the fact we've largely been on opposite sides of the fence since I was Branston, it'd be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that this isn't due in part to Marietta's style of leadership. However, how much of it is down to this?

How much of it is down to a change of style from the majority of players? To use an example, when Anita was in power, we (we meaning around 75% of the userbase) would be looking to overthrow her at every possible opportunity. This time around, although Marietta has of course survived more than her fair share of wars, I don't think it's happened to the same degree. Is this because Marietta has struck clinically and only when absolutely necesary to pre empt threats against her before they took hold; or is it because people are beginning to realise that if they just keep shtum and rank up, they will more often than not get a good shake of the stick.

In short, is this current trend down to the patient and tolerant style of leadership that is allowing more people to obtain high ranks. If this is the case, we have to assume once this leadership is gone, whether we are looking towards a reset, the new game, or just an unexpected turnover in accounts, then regular Godfathers will become a thing of the past as the game reverts to the days when scores of leaders died at Don due to more frequent wars.

Alternatively, it may be the case as suggested that the mindset of the majority has changed. That more and more are thinking 'If I just keep my head down, stop being paranoid and refrain from being a cunt then I have a real chance here'. If this is the case and we can expect this trend to continue into the future regardless of who's at the top; then is this a good thing?

A lot of people yearn for the old days, when wars were more commonplace and times were more exciting. Crewleaders were regularly taken out and their family decimated for relatively minor offences. I don't want to get into a discussion over what constitutes legitimate grounds for war, but unquestionably I personally feel it was more exciting and nervewracking to exist in an environment where the slightest mistake could send your family spiralling down the drain.

However, some may argue that more tension exists now. As demonstrated by recent wars, having long periods of relative peacefulness result in a massive bottling up of pressure, which eventually results in wars of gigantic proportions. Is this a more exciting way of playing? The months of stillness and rising tension before...KABLAMO!

So, if I asked you to disregard who is in leadership now and who was in leadership 'then' and just to consider the actual dynamics (it's diffcult, I know) then which sort of playing field do you prefer?

1.  where we have several Dons and so forth, none of which who are significantly more powerful than the other which results in a higher amount of wars as those on an equal footing are more inclined to make their grab for power and less inclined to take shit from their peers.

2. Where we have a small caste of elite who generally oversee the game and ensure, almost like Guardians, that wars are not undertaken on a whim but for calculated reasons. Often this is not even direct intervention from the GF's themselves, just the vague idea of their presence. I would go out on a limb and guess many people in power have grievances of some description but are largely unwilling to act on them for fear of backlash from the Godfathers.

Personally speaking, I believe scenario 2 provides a richer tapestry. After all, the rank was created for a reason. However, it is my belief that the Godfathers are perhaps too involved in day to day activities, though I admit this is largely an assumption as I have no idea of the present inner workings; this brings me to my next point neatly, the role of Godfathers in their cities.

Unquestionably, they are the Boss of their City. This of course means their word is final and as a result all Crewleaders in the city will be subservient to them. Does this mean they should work directly for them or that all the families in a city should be working together, almost as if the Godfather becomes the CL, and the CLs become Sub Crew Leaders? Personally, I don't think this should be the case. The potential is always there to create some siege mentality whereby every city is in their own corner, and thus; CL 3 from Vegas can't have a dispute with CL B from Orleans without it being a massive issue involving Godfathers and all sort of whatsits.

it's my belief that Godfathers should run the city in a fashion that they mediate disputes between CL's in their own city, and of course have the ultimate say in policy and discussing city matters with CL's/GF's from outside the city. I don't think every CL in the same city as a GF should be considered one and the same and come under the same umbrella, as this could ultimatly lead to stagnancy. Instead, each Leader should be considered autonomous, but answerable to the GF in matters that have big affects.

For all I know, this may very well happen in some cities already; but that creates another problem. Once a Don ascends to GF and his family is passed down to the RHM. What happens there? Should the family under the new Leader still be considered autonomous, or does the fact that the Leader is usually the now-Godfather's ex-rhm give them superiority? I think that in itself is a reasonable assumption, but where is the line drawn. Are captains drawn from the Godfather's ex-HQ considered superior to 'normal' Leaders of a same city due to their connections; or should all of this be handled on a case to case basis?

I can see some argument that it should be, but then this could lead to general confusion over the chain of command and overall pecking order in a city; so perhaps a precedent should be firmly established. This is organised crime after all.

That's about all I have to say. I realise this is probably rambly and very disjointed, but I've been thinking about these things for a while and I thought I'd finally put figurative pen to paper. As I said, I'd appreciate everyone's opinions on this, especially the higher ups; as the situation we're in is largely unchartered (Although we have had quite a few months of regular GF-ship, it's not a large amount of time considering the years that went by both here and the original without any) and it'd be interesting to see how people's thoughts vary on the same subject.

Cheers Mateys.

I`ll have to say, that is one hell of a post! Congrats FlyingMonkey for making a lot of points and coming up with many observations. Since I`m still fairly new, I can`t add to much to this post, but I`ll answer a couple of the questions from my own viewpoint.

As a newbie, I prefer a family with some stability, good structure, and is not always involved in conflict. The mafia itself was never meant to engage in large scale wars with other families. I would like to see this game focus a little more on business rather than having wars every minute of the day. I also don`t understand why *drugs* is a major income component to this game. If we are set in the 1930`s, mafia members would get clipped for getting involved with drugs.

I`m not so sure about all the *Don* and *Godfather* business. This game is structured differently from other games. The Godfather is typically head of all the city families, but usually has limited control over all the families. He`s the guy who attempts to settle disputes among the families.

All in all, I prefer to chill out on wars and get down to making money. If someone in your family needs to get clipped, by all means, do it. If you are being disrespected by other families, then light the fuse and throw the bomb.

To answer your first question about the reason we have so many more high ranks and godfathers right now, peaceful times have had some sort of impact, but mostly it is the ease of ranking. We have seen a few rank to Godfather in four months. It took both Anita and Scotland over 8 months, and I know for a fact Anita was usually online at least 10 hours per day. Think about all the godfathers we would have had in the past if it could be done in four months. Hell, even five months. Ganelon, Uncle Nicky, ratSkcoR, Evsie, 94Octane, Mercedes, Seyarah, and probably 100 more.

As far as which type of system I prefer, I think each has its own benefits. The old system was certainly much more exciting. Every day some crazy shit might happen. However, it is also nice to know at the moment you are creating a character that you will most likely have the time to develop something really great.

I have spoken about the Godfather system many times and tried to explain exactly how the system should be implemented.

First, what is a Godfather?

"Godfather" was nothing more than a nickname for Marlon Brando's character in the movie "The Godfather". Even in that movie, it had no application towards mafia rank.

So what does it mean here then?

The way we use the term "Godfather" here, it is interchangeable with "Capo di tutti Capi", which means "Boss of all Bosses". In real life, there has never been a Boss who was given this formal distinction. The closest to come to it was probably Carlo Gambino.

So...let's look at how Gambino operated his family to see how the "Godfather" rank should apply here:

Since it is the only real-life example we can use to model our system, Gambino should be used as a role model for our Godfathers. Gambino was the Boss of the Gambino crime family in New York City. It was one of the five established families. He had been in power for a long time, avoided incarceration, and his family grew to be much more powerful than the other NY families. Gambino was not the "Boss" of the other families. That is one thing that annoys me around here. People seem to think that a Godfather is the Boss of every family in a city - he is not. What Gambino did was settle disputes between families. If there was a dispute about who controlled what, Gambino would settle it. Much like a Boss does with capos in their own family. He is an administrator.

Gambino also assigned the rackets. When there was too much stepping on of each other's toes, Gambino decided who controlled what in the city. For example - and this is all from memory from previous research, so if I am mistaken sue me - Gambino assigned the prostitution rackets to the Bonano family, gambling to the Luchese family, and kept the docks for his own family. Something similar could be done here: Marietta could assign Gambling rackets to one family, DFPs to another, and the bar district to yet another. However, she should not be acting like everyone in Detroit was one big happy family.

Then again, I can hear the cries already of "But that's not fair! We wanted the DFPs!" Because that's what mobsters do, is cry like pansies when something is not fair or they don't get their way. And this is why I hate all of you.

Butt_Ox...thank you for clarifying what I was trying to say...I didn`t write it as well as I would have liked. I think everyone should understand that *Godfather* is more or less a name of respect and the guy who was basically a moderator between all the familes.

Didn`t want to write *head of all families*..that was incorrect.

Very well said Mr. Ox I love to hear how people get auth to create a family? I mean did he/she must loyal to the person gave that auth? You're a smart guy, please enlighten me

I personally greatly dislike the position the Godfathers have taken and it only permits one style of play. Taking Detroit for example, each crew is headed by a Captain of Marietta. These are not individual organizations (although I think the supposed Captains on our streets forget this themselves from time to time) they are in fact one organization, headed by Marietta.  That is 188/673 sponsored accounts all in the employ of Marietta. This is more, I should point out, than either the maximum total of 150 on the old game in a userbase of several thousand, or when the original Captains were introduced directly under a leader.

When nearly a third of all mobsters are in one family, stagnancy is absolutely inevitable. When the head of that family has a virtually unassailable position, taking on Detroit is virtual suicide. This is before we consider Philly, which has another 118 sponsored accounts working directly for Odd through various Captaincies and Los Angeles, which has another 94 working for Premier.

Whilst we see plenty of bold names around, the number of unique families is extremely slim and if the old boldslanty still existed, I think it would offer a clearer indication of just how few organizations are actually operating out of the seven cities at the moment. Knowing the histories as well as I do, I know a chief gripe throughout it is 'lack of diversity' in leadership.

The only style of play when you have this sort of setup is inter-city wars with massive consequences. Disputes between individual crews are massive occurrences because we only have a handful of organizations around. This leads to long periods of stability whilst situations and boredom build up until it turns into an all or nothing for 75% of the game.

I don't think it should ever get to the point where people are perceived to be 'unkillable' and even a master strategist would struggle to see how the current regime could be toppled. This is largely due to volume of bodyguards they have at their disposal reaching previously unreachable totals and the amount of money they can generate. How many bodyguards Ganelon could have bought himself if they had not been capped in his day?

Has the mindset of the majority changed? I doubt it. I doubt the majority is ever against the current regime of leaders. I've found it tends to be a handful of malcontents who either failed in their own ambitious or never had the ability to achieve their aims in the first place. The majority are playing the game as they always have, clicking away in a crew not really understanding what the game is about.

The real question you're asking is has the mindset of their opposition changed? I think the quality of their opposition is lacking, compared to what has opposed other regimes. I'm sure if you dig deep enough the discontent with the current leadership would be as strong as ever with any other regime. More likely however their chief opponents have been battered into submission and no miracle shots are slipping through to give them hope they shouldn't have. I take a war that involved half the game vs the other, which caused the survivors few significant casualties as a primary example of this.

In my opinion, the Godfather role is not a direct one and I don't feel the need to elaborate on this again, I've done so in the past and Butt_Ox's real life example should be the blueprint for us to follow. That it isn't could just as easily come down to the practicalities of ensuring your own survival as a lack of knowledge about the organization of Mafia.

~T~

Good to see another exciting event of "Marietta has ruined the game" theater.

Dearest Sprozza, the main argument presented here is that "things are more fun when people are shooting each other and there are wars all the time." I understand I have condensed your post into a short sentence, but ultimately that is the heart of your matter. I enjoy a good wartime, don't get me wrong, but it's click-monkey wack-addicts (like myself in years past) who have unwittingly turned the game into one big gun training session. I always thought the purpose of the game was to role play, not to gun everything down on the site.

Through a stable leadership, role play has been encouraged, the site has grown in numbers, and new people have been given chances to shine as crewleaders. How are these bad things?

If people are complaining about the leadership in the site, I suggest they give the old RP pathway a good shot. I had more fun role playing a female sea captain as Briana_Arao than I did in most of my other hitter accounts on site. Even FakeMan (GRHS), one of the site's most legendary killers, had fun roleplaying my mentally disabled first mate.

I understand I work for Marietta and people will routinely disregard me as "a loyal supporter," but more importantly I am just an old player who has turned over a new leaf. The game shouldn't be about how many kills you have or killing for the fun of it.

Six in one box, half dozen in the other. I could argue either point of this argument, but to be quite frank i don't have the time of day to be getting worked up over something so trivial. There's a simple solution really, and I gag a little bit as I say it;

Either change things, shut the hell up, or quit. Really it's that simple. There's no point in talking about your dislike of the way things are ran unless you're going to actually do something. Sure the conversation is stimulating, and you get to see who really thinks what, but when it comes down to it; things are the same as before you hit Submit!

"Good to see another exciting event of "Marietta has ruined the game" theater." - Who exactly is that aimed at Rourke?

Telkin, if we only spoke on things that would directly change as a result of pressing submit, we would sit in silence. The fact that you've tried to summarise this entire thread into the "shutup or quit" line suggests you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. I hope that is the case as I find it galling that you could consider, in a Mafia RPG, the role of Godfather 'something so trivial'.

~T~

So we should just never bother expressing our opinions then Telkin? Fuck it, let's just get rid of the forums.

Did I say that? No, I said do something about it. If you feel so strongly about something like this, then make a move to change it. This argument I'm sure, has been had 100 times over. I don't see the point in getting all riled up over nothing. Maybe if something were to actually come from this, I'd stuff my foot in my mouth(fat chance though.) However, when the rank and role of the Godfather(or mother, in the case of Marietta and Aurora,) has been, and most likely always will be the same as it was, what's the point in saying anything at all? Other than looking like a whining prat who is upset that their ancestors didn't reach said rank, there's no point at all.

"Good to see another exciting event of "Marietta has ruined the game" theater." - Who exactly is that aimed at Rourke?

It was towards Mr. FlyingMonkey. His original position stated things quite clearly that this was a combination of "Marietta's style of leadership" and "a change of style from the majority of players" ultimately brought on by the emergence of Marietta as Godfather/Godmother.

Yes, you did say that:

"Either change things, shut the hell up, or quit. Really it's that simple. There's no point in talking about your dislike of the way things are ran unless you're going to actually do something."

I refer specifically to your comments "shut the hell" and "no point in talking about your dislike".

Misunderstood the point of this thread, I'll just stop talking.

I think Telkin and Rourke have both taken this to be some sort of  "Look at me the bitter Made Man who is still jaded at not being at the top." Granted, some highly ambitious paraphrasing there, but I feel that's what's being said to me; very sad considering the work I put into putting across a thread that is unbiased and probing as I can make it.

"It was towards Mr. FlyingMonkey. His original position stated things quite clearly that this was a combination of "Marietta's style of leadership" and "a change of style from the majority of players" ultimately brought on by the emergence of Marietta as Godfather/Godmother."

Of course I said as much. Marietta has been alive for a year, and for a good 9 months of that she has been in a position to change things. It stands to reason that pretty much everything that is going on can be pinned on Marietta, just as when Anita was in power, just as when Ganelon, just as when UncleNicky - the list goes on.

Where did I say that Marietta ruined the game actually? I definitely don't remember inferring as much. Perhaps I didn't put my points across clearly enough here, but I've reread the post and I still can't find anywher where it may look as though I was directly criticising Marietta, particularly given that I never stated we have a problem (where Telkin is getting this from I have fucking no idea.).

In fact, totally contrary to the point people think I am making; I actually said "Personally speaking, I believe scenario 2 provides a richer tapestry."...scenario 2 in the thread being the situation of having a small band of elite, ie the Godfathers.

Apologies for this rather slapdash reply, I shall formulate a less aggressive response a little later when I have some time on my hands - I just had a quick 10 minutes to read through and these misunderstandings got my goat a little bit.

Love.

I'm with Butt_Ox. Yet I see it a different way. If we don't hit "submit" and tell about our opinions then it takes away almost the entire game. Also, things have ALWAYS been changed by words in someway. I for one have learned if you watch how you say but not what you say you can go a lot further. I still voice exactly how I feel but in words that won't be taken harsh.

So when you tell us to change it, shut the hell up or quit that makes me think you don't deserve to speak really. Thank god this isn't the streets because some people wouldn't have taken that so well. Example when JamaicanMob_Marley said something of sorts of "fuck you" and odd was quite upset. Not exactly what happened, but you get the gist.

Telkin if I could say anything in MY opinion it is that you shouldn't be so harsh on people. You have made plenty of attempts to do things that are quite unorthodox and it gets shrugged off. If you don't like what someones opinion is then DONT HIT SUBMIT. Just an idea because I wouldn't bash on your opinions, I may raise points but I wouldn't go about it the way you did.

Like I always tell every new person and anyone with anger problems. It's not what you say but how you say it. I could go in the streets and say "Well Sherlock that idea is completely retarded. You should go out back and fall on a pitch fork." instead you just re word it to be polite so you don't offend them but get the message to them to think things through.

I don't know, I'm just rambling now. Enjoy, nice thread by the way Monkey. Nice to see some fresh thoughts.

Ok, I'll address the main points here. I'm shit at blockquotes so you'll have to put up with me using quotation marks as whoever invented them intended.

Cheers for the point regarding ease of ranking Butt_Ox, definitely a factor though it doesn't necessarily take away from the achievements of those who had made it. Speaking from a personal point of view, I saw Clause day in day on his GF character and I rarely saw less than total dedication; something I'd have to assume is the case for all the other Godfathers.

As Don Gotti said thanks for clarifying what I needed to say. Your example of Gambino made the point I was trying to far more effectively to be quite honest.

Here we go depthy, it's your post I have most things to say about. First off. I would like to clarify to yourself and everyone who is reading that this is not meant to be some sort of current Godfather appraisal, it is certainly not my intention to pass judgement on the way people are playing; particularly those who have been more successful than myself. What I was trying to do, which I perhaps didn't stress enough in the initial thread, was to garner the opinions of the masses on what Godfathers should do, what their roles should be in the game compared to what they actually are. Are the roles that Godfathers take up currently a result of their own choosing, or is it more the pressure to do what is perceived to be the 'normal' thing. I'm not pointing the stick at anyone in particular; just trying to put the thoughts and mindsets of the userbase under the spotlight.

"Through a stable leadership, role play has been encouraged, the site has grown in numbers, and new people have been given chances to shine as crewleaders. How are these bad things?"

I agre here mate. Stable leadership certainly plays a massive part in these things, it's folly to suggest otherwise. New players feel less inclined to stick around when the accounts they put (what they think is) hard work into when they die every week as a result of a ridiculous war. However, the logical part of me says the the money and time being invested into the advertising is having a far bigger effect. No doubt this will be somehow misconstrued into me saying that the CL's doing their thing doesn't mean shit; but of course I realise that the initiatives of Marietta but other leaders is doing wonders for this game, it is a simple fact that incentives to help n00bs out have always been here, we just have no measure of how effective it was in the past as we have never had this amount of advertising.

Regarding roleplay and giving new folks a chance, I would argue that this has always happened (sometimes in fits and bursts) and is not necessarily dependant on whether we have stable families and so on. I believe roleplay, in particular, doesn't notice any negative effects as a result of nearly continuous war and rapid leadership turnover; though I would agree that roleplay and indeed giving new faces a shout seems to be going through something of a revolution, which is always a good thing!

To address this statement next, in a fashion that is disjointed at best: "things are more fun when people are shooting each other and there are wars all the time."

I think this is a ridiculous paraphrasing of my thread. Wars all the time? Never good, the game needs some stability. Occasional wars? A good thing. This game needs some level of leadership turnover to thrive, and recently we have had a supreme example of this. A large group of leaders working together for a long period of time, until eventually the build up of tension was so severe that almost the entire site went to war. I realise that the whole site has warred before, but never has stability been so ravaged that admins have had to step in to relieve matters. At least I don't recall this ever happening, if it has I will of course stand humbled and corrected.

I believe this is because, as I briefly touched upon and tallien discussed, there is no real sense of autonomy. As far as I can see, there is no real way 2 CL's in 'GFed' cities can have a dispute with each other without it becoming, as has been said before me, a huge conflict. Thus, I think that things are brushed under the carpet until such a stage when everyone is tearing shite out of each other. Is this a bad thing? I personally think so. Others may see it as a good thing, an indiction that it's important to forge alliances and be shrewd - something the mafia was all about. Either way, I really find it hard to stress that I'm not directing this at the Leadership; it's a mentality that the userbase has, and has had for years.

"The game shouldn't be about how many kills you have or killing for the fun of it."

I half agree, if you look at people who killed just for the 'fun' of it, they are nearly always the cretinuous wankers who only make a name for themselves by being repeated failures/rogues. If you look at the people who killed for the pursuit of something higher, i.e the clout to back up their ideas and words, these are nearly always the people who succeed and are remembered.

"Either change things, shut the hell up, or quit. Really it's that simple. There's no point in talking about your dislike of the way things are ran unless you're going to actually do something. Sure the conversation is stimulating, and you get to see who really thinks what, but when it comes down to it; things are the same as before you hit Submit!"

I don't want to change things. I've had my numerous chances whilst sitting up on my pedestal. Those days are gone and now I get more enjoyment just shooting the breeze and having a good debate. Things are the same as before I hit submit? No. I spent some good time talking with people and getting their views. Of course if you're talking about the way things are, of course things are still the same. Maybe we should stop roleplaying, posting and ranking in general - as I'm pretty sure I could go all the way to Consigliere and the overall picture would still be the same. But that's a defeatist attitude, and a ridiculous statement from yourself considering I'm not looking to change anything just now.

As an aside, this is the OOC. The place we're meant to be able to talk about the game without bringing up our positions in game. Therefore, I felt it a perfect place to bring up the role of Godfathers (rank), not the role of The Godfathers (people). The distinction I feel was made clearly enough, even if it was necessary to use examples involving The Godfathers to illustrate points about Godfathers in addition.

Thanks for reading this presumably disjointed essay that hasn't even been spellchecked. xoxoxox

I personally feel SCENARIO 1 is the better and not based on the number of wars, but witnessing how this new regime, SCENARIO 2, is run. We have a Godparent of MR, Marietta, yeah it can be argued she only runs one city, a city that going to war with would be almost certain suicide. And I haven't even got a problem with the fact that she runs her city well, more power to her (IN DETROIT of course). But the case is she doesn't run just Detroit she runs EVERY other city, if she tells a GF this is how things are going to be run. That is how things are going to be run, because if they go against it That Bum Will Be Swimming With the Fishes. We have seen it happen before, and not only did Detroit go after said person every city that Marietta held weight in joined on her side e.g. New York and it wasn't solely because their friends it's because said cities don't want to go against the strongest hand in the game.

Also from what I have read, yes I read. "Godfathers" like before mentioned never existed there were always families that were the strongest in a city but never a Godfather, like Jonny Torrio in Chicago's prohibition era acted as mediator between his family and other families, dividing up land sort of like a stereotypical "Godfather" but his word was not necessarily the final word. And even though his words did hold some weight there were strong competition, such as O'Banion, and in our world there are potential competition but they won't separate out of game relationships with in game relationships. Which move me onto my next point about this whole Rourke epidemic if you're not a Rourke or at least Rourke associated you're not going to progress fast enough or high enough in comparison with the work you put in. So yeah we got one leader so our accounts last longer due to fewer wars but is it not worse because only the select few make it further because they can be trusted to be put in places of power so they won't potentially go against Marietta and other high ranking Rourkes.

Basically I feel this game has become more of a game of monopoly for the "Godfathers" than am trying to control my city and run a great city of mobsters, but preventing them from warring in the same city, but not stating "oh you can't war X from city Y because us in city B, C and D work for those in city A". I personally feel if the game is going to have "Godfathers" then they need to delegate what is going to happen in their city but not be so heavily involved in the day to day running's of said city.  And this Rourke epidemic should be eliminated and in game each character should be treated as brand new fresh of the boat new bloods rather than old friends who people thought was dead coming back into our world under a new alias.

Sprozza, I always enjoy a relative debate with someone who intelligently speaks their mind and responds to posts with genuine opinions and ideas rather than delirious ramblings about Rourke names being a key to success. I appreciate your thoughts and posts and enjoy reading them even in the instances where you and I tend to disagree.

I will apologize for reading too far into your opinions and taking them as a direct attack on Marietta rather than a thread attempting to allow other users to discuss their beliefs on Godfather interaction in the game. Too often I have seen people blame Marietta for a multitude of things from site destruction to global warming to reasons why they weren't allowed to have auth or take their own city. I believe a small part of me was ultimately trying to prevent further instances of users attacking Marietta directly, but as we can all see in the small diatribe by Mr. Anthony_Dillinger, I have failed once again. To Mr. Dillinger: move along now child, adults are speaking.

I also apologize for boiling your idea down to a sentence of "wars all the time and people shooting each other." I completely agree that wars are necessary on occasion to either remove potential threats to a family or as punishment for large scale actions. I chose to take the low road here and attack your original post without much merit and prey off the public opinion that guntraining is the most successful way and only significant way to play the game. I couldn't see the forest for the trees and while I did read the entire thread, I selected the parts of your post that bolstered my point while slightly tweaking them to fit my needs.

I'm on a borrowed laptop for now and I'll have to stop by to address more of your points when I am back on a home computer. Many good points on the role of a Godfather in society have been raised and I have had little time to discuss them with you. Again, I am sorry for basically attacking you directly with weak evidence and look forward to our continued chats.

Regards,

~R~