| May 20 - 20:28:33 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: 1 |
| Crewleader opinions and prescence | Started by: gins7ers on Nov 17, '07 19:00 |
|
The man stops shouting and waits as a small handful of people gather around him. Ahh, I'm glad I grabbed your attention. No, alas, although it may well be overdue, a rant over the crew leaders presence is not my agenda today. I have come with another problem, something which has been niggling away in the back of my mind for a good few hours now. I have come to ask pose the question: "How long is too long." Yes, ambiguous I know, so let me explain further. Basically how long is it before you could be considered not to owe a duty of loyalty to your ex-boss, the person who has given you permission to set up in your own city. "None", no doubt people are already claiming. You don't feel you would owe any kind of loyalty, to your ex-boss, the person whom you had served for, for many days. The person who had given you everything: protection, money and ultimately the chance to set up. I'm going to put this into a scenario for the slow out there. A has served under B for quite a while and progressed up the ranks. Eventually B decides A deserves the chance to run his own family. A sets up and starts his own family. 7 days later, B is warred upon by C. Would A be expected to help out B, or look after his own intentions and let the B die alone. A says fuck him. I don't wanna die. Now, if you were A. Would you, should you help out B, your previous boss. The man who has given you everything. Even if B has died, would you fight alone, in his name, against C. or would you stay out for fear of death and care too much for your own safety. After all, it is every man for himself. How long, would it be considered okay, in your eyes, for A not to have to be there for B so to speak. Please put thought into your reply and try not to make it too number orientated, so to speak such as saying, '3 days is long enough.' Hopefully that has made the question I pose clear enough. Now, wouldn't be much of a discussion without my own input first. So here goes. The man pauses for a second to gather his thoughts before speaking. Now me. Well, 7 days after I was given the chance to run my family, providing we are still on good terms, with regular communication, I certainly would be there for that person. They gave me everything, this once chance. I would never shit on that person. I would feel I still "owed" them. Maybe as time went on, say a month or two, or maybe we didn't speak very much, if at all, things would change. The man pauses once more, taking a sip of water. Alas, I understand my opinion isn't particularly long and I quite frankly I am embarrassed myself. But I thought I should put the question out there whilst the topic is still quite fresh in my mind anyway. I will almost certainly be returning with a more detailed response, but for now, I care more about my fellow Mafioso and their opinions. So please, have your turn, don't be shy. The man motions to the stage before taking a seat at the very front of the rather large crowd which has now appeared. |
|
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I'll be honest with you, I didn't even listen to your entire rant and I might look afool replying the way I do, but..I guess I am used to looking like a fool, so here 'goes. If CL A auths the set up of CL B in their own city, for example if Three got really drunk and set me up in Philly, then I would still be working directly for her. As a good leader of my own family it is my duty to give tributes to my Authing CL. However, if B is Authed to set up in B's own city then B would have been Authed by the majority of all the current leaders. If CL B was to stay true to all those that set him/her up then they would have to be true to all the CL's...and thats just dumb. This, however, brings up another point. Alliances. If you go into an alliance with another CL then I feel its your duty to help the other CL in the Alliance, after all you would want all the help you could get if you went to war. Choosing your Alliance is a HUGE step, you better know this other leader pretty freakin well, being in Alliance with a CL that has no intention of getting involved in YOUR issues is a onesided and horrible alliance indeed. The first chance someone gets to stab you in the back they usually will, its hard these days to find someone you trust enough to get into an Alliance with. NOt sure if this made any sense...but I made the attempt... PR_Rep |
|
| Reply by: PR_Rep at Nov 17, '07 19:15 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I find it really annoying when people say 'Alliances' All 'Alliances' are is a way of forcing people to HAVE to take a side even if they aint involved in anyway. Sure all well and good for those warmongers out there. But what about those that actually have a reason to break into a war with someone? What they have to hold their feelings back because they aint calling for a 3v3. What I'm trying to say is, 'Alliances' just mean you HAVE to pick sides when some wars shouldnt involve you. Now for 'Should they help them?' Yeh That goes back to my point of 'Alliances' - Sure you owe them something, But should you just jump into a war because of that, What about if you think the person you should be helping is in the wrong? Some hard issues, And I can see why I see people struggling when these choices come up. Sits and waits for others to reply, To listen to some more opinions. |
|
| Reply by: Don_Manovanni at Nov 17, '07 19:50 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
This is exactly why my forefathers would never get into an Alliance. YOu are setting yourself up for failure... I agree with you completely Don_Manovanni. you got it right. |
|
| Reply by: PR_Rep at Nov 17, '07 19:57 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
The world is a cruel and unforgiving place. For me the question isn't assessing whether you "owe" someone. The question is whether it is in your own interests to act or not. When a Boss gives you authorisation to set up you are not an extended branch of their family. You have your own bold suit, you recruit your own people and perhaps most importantly, you live and die every day by your own decisions. The most professional and serious minded Bosses know this. They know in advance the repercussions of setting up an associate in business, not least of which is either diluting or enhancing your own strength. I believe the Sicilians call it furberia. The skill of one who knows all the angles before he or she makes their move. For me the answer to this question lies with the first Boss, not the second. |
|
| Reply by: Rhydian-Roberts at Nov 17, '07 20:03 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
You said it yourself. Crewleader B is authing Crewleader A to set up their OWN family. It is not an extension of B's family. A is his own leader, on equal footing with B, and is free to act as such. There is no sense of favors being owed. Most leaders would choose to align themselves with their traditional allies--i.e. A will come to B's rescue. But this isn't always the case. If B thinks A did something retarded, it is B's prerogative to stay out of the conflict. If B thinks that A is being unfairly targeted, and senses that he may be next, it is probably better to step in and fight. All in all, it depends on the situation. But just because someone authed you doesn't mean they are right 100% of the time. You have your own family to take care of. |
|
| Reply by: TylerDurden at Nov 17, '07 20:18 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Thank you PR, I think that when you set up, I think you do owe them. But you dont owe them enough to do their bidding but you owe respect. And that is what this world is all about. I also find that if you was once given something by someone, If you are in a position to do the same in the future you would do the same for their bloodline if the situation should arise. I would never accept auth from someone to set up a family if I wouldnt consider their bloodline in another situation. |
|
| Reply by: Don_Manovanni at Nov 17, '07 20:22 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Walking along the streets of Philly, Seventh notices a small crowd gathering on one corner of the street. Curious, he takes a quick look at his watch and figured he had time to spare so he decided to join the crowd and listen to what they had to say. A has served under B for quite a while and progressed up the ranks. Eventually B decides A deserves the chance to run his own family. A sets up and starts his own family. 7 days later, B is warred upon by C. Would A be expected to help out B, or look after his own intentions and let the B die alone. A says fuck him. I don't wanna die. With all due respect Sir, I think that the context is insufficient in some aspects that would yield answers along different lines. There are many considerations that need to be taken into account with this set up as what the others have pointed out (i.e. family B authing family A to set up in his/her own city, who was wrong etc.). And you may be hearing a lot of differing opinions on this. Whatever the case is, here is my answer: Personally, I would have to take in consideration on what the war is based on. If it was a war caused by stupid or uncalled actions done by family C, then there is no discussion. I will help out family B. However, if it was family B who was wrong then I'd have no part in the said war. Aside from this there are still other things to consider as I have said but I will not pursue that so I'm also providing a principled answer to this question. In principle (taking aside the circumstances i.e. family strength, who is wrong and who is right, etc.), I liken the scenario to parents and their children. Family ties are existent but not absolute. True. You owe them for where you are right now but it doesn't mean that you are forever indebted to them. Sure you still have to honor some old promises but that doesn't mean you are at the beck and call of the family that auth you. You have your own family now and it is your duty to secure your family's interests. To close this so as not to trouble you all any longer, I say it is still dependent on the circumstances but it should go along the principle by which I stated. Thank you and Good day. With that, Seventh tips his hat and walks away to catch the next flight back to New York. |
|
| Reply by: Seventh at Nov 17, '07 20:54 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
For the record....
I'd have to be reallllllllllllllllllllly, reallllllllllllllllllllllllly, really drunk... Stoned.... Under the influence of roofies... Hyped up on caffeine... Kidding... The roofies was overdoing it. Now, seriously... In my eyes when a leader gives the nod to someone from their own family to set up in a different city than the family is located it is like kicking a babe out of the nest. It is allowing them to spread their wings and go solo. Now, this does not mean that they are no longer a friend of the family, but that they are not an extension of the family.. You do owe your authing leader(s) respect, but you are not required to do their dirty work. When a leader allows a member of their own family to open their doors in the same family I consider that an extension of the family and would expect that leader to support the city leader (I hate the term Acting Godfather/Godmother.) in their endeavors and help defend the city... I would expect them to follow any rules or guidelines set out by the city leader. HOWEVER I would not expect them to also stand up for themselves, I would expect them to have an independent thought or two... I would expect them to have their own personality. Their first loyalty should be to the city and the family in that city. |
|
| Reply by: Three at Nov 17, '07 21:07 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
She hiccups... Erm, I meant to say....... Open their doors in the same city... Not family... Damn this coffee! Damn it to hell.. |
|
| Reply by: Three at Nov 17, '07 21:09 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Three, your insight is well-informed and (mostly) well-worded. However, there is one point where I take issue with what you say. "Their first loyalty should be to the city and the family in that city." I disagree wholeheartedly. Their first loyalty should be to THEIR family. The other family still supports them, and protects them, but a crewleader's first loyalty is always to his own family--no matter what. THAT is the problem with alliances. Entering an entangling alliance forces a family to choose between his family and his alliance. If he chooses his family, he is a Judas, a traitor to his allies. If he chooses his alliance, he is an unfit leader who needlessly sends his family off to die for someone else. There is no winning in this situation. |
|
| Reply by: TylerDurden at Nov 17, '07 21:38 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Sorry, but to me authing someone in your own city is extending your family... Therefore it's ONE family and that family comes first. If you auth a member of your family in another city then they are their own family. | |
| Reply by: Three at Nov 17, '07 22:29 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: 1 |
How much do you want to tip for this post?
Minimum $20,000
Minimum $20,000
