To Anna, discussion and debate in the streets were things she saw as intrinsically good. Stories could be good, a well spoken announcement could be good, but discussion and debate, in her mind, were what these very streets were made for. If people got passionate, it was a sign to Anna that something, somewhere, was being done right. With that in mind, today she intended to try to bring a discussion to the streets.

"So, standards. Most of us have them. And, across our world, there are a few standards that are pretty much universal. Don't shoot a sponsored member. Don't shoot someone under a protection order. Don't use the new blood in our world as target practice. Don't tell a crew leader they're an odious cunt on the streets. There's plenty of standards that most mobsters in our happily adhere to and that nigh on all of our crew leaders will hold their people to - usually for good reason. These standards mark us out as mafiosi, rather than common street thugs. They make our world different to the world those street thugs live in. 

I'm sure we can all agree in principle that standards in our world exist and I think most would agree in principle that it is a good thing that we do have those standards. That isn't what I'm here to speak about today.

What I'd like to speak about today, is the consistency with which those standards are applied.

Now, we don't seem to have a particularly visible council of leaders these days, nor does there appear to be any alliances with funky names running things either. And I don't consider either of those things to be particularly bad things at all. Some large scale alliances can and have been particularly damaging to this thing of ours for everyone who isn't part of that group. Not all, but enough. So, one must assume that district heads are making their decisions independently. 

So, here's my question: Should we expect a consistent application of standards across our world, with consistent reactions to breaches of those standards to match? Would it be better or worse if we were to see a more consistent application of standards? I'm interested to see where people fall on this.

Anna leans back against the wall, hoping people may come by to share some thoughts.

How one person chooses to run their family should be of no concern to anyone else, unless the method impedes upon the success or future of another. There are some standards everyone has agreed upon, such as who you can and cannot shoot and when you can shoot them. The response to infractions is, and should be different, depending on the leader, the rule-breaker, and how they have or have not benefited their family.

When a godfather rises over a city, then you can have a standard, as that person calls the shots for an entire city; however, those standards cannot be enforced in other cities in which the potential godfather would have no domain. We will always have families with splintered view points on how things should be run, and I for one and ok with that.

It depends on what crop of leaders there are and in what kind of circumstances or atmosphere they were authorized, I think. I can imagine that the founding leaders of this era, who came to prominence after multiple messy and long wars, are rather protective of their individual freedom in applying standards, rules and punishments. My late father had petitioned Duplicity about the possibility of a Godfather Council and a set of uniform rules, but this was swiftly rejected as it surfaced that most district heads had no desire for such an institution. I personally think there's no better way to guarantee some more or less universally accepted standards than through a GFC (in this case a District Head Commission), but that might be me. 

I do think people expect a general consistency when it comes to the application of standards and I do believe this is met to a certain extent. Most if not all have the same punishment for shooting someone you shouldn't have for example. Far-reaching standards such as the required speech from would-be leader in the Curtis era aren't necessarily great. The example I mentioned was perhaps good in theory but delivered some rather poor, unoriginal and unenthusiastic speeches. Something that looked good on the surface but wasn't quite that shiny when you looked closely.

Uniform standards on punishment are important to me. Leaders should be given enough space to deal with their members themselves and in their own way as long as it's within reason. I also think we must look on a case by case basis rather than using the same punishment for everything. There is an important difference between a genuine mistake by an inexperienced member and a street-savvy Consigliere.

On another note, and one that has to do with your comment, LaPaglia, I do think it is of some concern to other cities (and even individuals) how other families are run. It is up to the community in the streets to judge and criticize their colleagues & comrades in crime, in a constructive way that is. For example, if one family engages in the despicable practice of ''member whoring'', isn't it fair that someone calls  him out for it? People, especially leaders, need to have a thick skin and sometimes even lowly associates can correct leaders who have made misstep. That's my opinion at least.

I'd like to see consistency of standards. It doesn't appear to happen much at all these days though.

Even those who aren't supposed to shoot at people on protection orders, 1 or 2 of those might slip through what most would consider the appropriate punishment because of who their line is, etc.  Should this be allowed? I don't think so but it is.

I have found that the only consistent thing in our community is being shot in the back by people you trusted. So if you can get the standards to be consistent that would be nice but I can't really hold my breath on that.

Alright, dears, I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate for a second. Ya all talkin about a desire for more consistency, but you're forgettin the fact that standards themselves are not fixed; they're always in a state of flux, dear. And these standards will always be in flux as various people pass the baton of leadership and decide what is to be the new 'normal.' Why if I recall, there was once a time where not being vocal enough was good enough reason for shootin a leader; he wasn't bein a leader by not speakin up, somethin that was a 'standard' in those days. That was the norm of those days and its changed among otha things, for betta or worse.

Edna starts to have a coughing fit

Gosh, excuse me there, dear. As I was sayin, the subjectivity of these standards and the non-uniformity in which they're applied is what gives life to this thing of ours. We ain't no cop union, so I don't see why some of youse want us to act like one with some grand council like some ad hoc supreme court. This is the mafia, dear. Some people are gonna have privileges afforded to them that bypass the norm while others won't. Some people are held to different standards while others aren't held to any at all. That non-uniformity is what makes this thing great and drives people to want to make a name for themselves. To be the privileged. Because it's not a fair thing and never was.

If ya want all these "standards," why don't we talk about standards for being a leader, or the lack of? There ain't none, dear, because the 'objectively best' aren't the ones that are selected. It's a subjective process that chooses the privileged, dears, and that's just how it is. Would you prefer a standard in which everyone stands in tow and are automatically authed once they reach a level + age? Course not!

No, we shouldn't. The only consistency of application is that which is dictated by those with supremacy. 

There is a fundamental difference between a Goomba and a Consigliere. A made guy is untouchable for the most part and has earned leeway in whatever it is they choose to do, whereas a Goomba is still on the street trying to make a living. This difference should be reflected in how the matters are dealt with.

Once we've considered the rank element, the actual strength and power of the families in question come in to play. The actions of a Consigliere in the weakest family and those of the strongest, once again, merit different responses; or should in my opinion. If I've worked my life to get to the top, I'm going to enjoy it. I'm going to use what I've carved out for myself and take all the advantages that come with it.  

Ah well, I am sorry if I gave off the impression of being upset by it. I am not. It was more a statement of what I have seen, no more and certainly no less than that.

Anna, I like how you phrase that we have standards and wonder about what happens if they are breached. In my book a breaching of standards is an exception. Therefor I'd like to bring all variables into consideration to determine the follow-up action. That can mean the same violation of standards, might bring different results dependent on the context in which it happened and I think that's fair.

I think I understand what Credits says on the matter, but I don't like how he put it, cause it might give the wrong impression of attitude. Or atleast, what I think should be a good attitude. If you have worked hard, got to the top, that is at no point a valid reason to lower your standards and enjoy the advantages of being at the top. At the top you should lead an exemplary life, even more so than lower ranks. Breaking with the high values and rules set by your family head at whatever point in your career is wrong. There's no advantages at the top that can be enjoyed freely. If you happen to slip however, while at the top, dependent on the situation there's a lot more reason to let it pass with no, minor or less visible repercussions. It's not something you claim, but rather something your leader grants you, because you earned it through previous efforts, which I fully agree with.

But an assumption that you can take advantages on forehand, only because you are the top, would be wrong by my standards. But I think Credits means that as well, the terms 'advantages' and 'enjoy' just feel a bit inappropriate.

This is the Mafia, not the classroom; there is no "exemplary life" and what is allowed is determined by the powerful. I'll take every advantage I've earned and if I can get away with more than you because of where I am placed, you can be certain I'm going to. Why wouldn't I? Some misguided sense of justice or fairness? Please.

Well, I guess it's clear we actually do disagree on the matter. Ofcourse I understand your power-stance and it holds some truth to it. But the powerful determine the standards that they deem wise for the continuation of their business and the public image that enables them do to business in a effective manner. Being powerful, but unjust to the masses will for sure create opposition within the society. On the short term the I-couldnt-care-less-attitude might not do you harm, but on the long term it's bound to bring you down.

The examples you set within your family are easily picked up by lesser ranks, who will display the same attitude, creating even more negative publicity. I'm not talking here about not disposing of the bodies after an assassination or taking a bigger cut of a payout. It's really about breaking nationwide standards we all recognize, like killing people under protection orders or disposing of FBN agents that weren't on your turf. Doing such things because you can is simply wrong. Ofcourse you can choose to do so, but what good does it really bring you and the operation you are a part of? The incidental mistake should be forgiven, but the persistent mentality that you are entitled to do such things is something I can't agree on.

In the long term, just surviving will bring you down as history has shown us it is inevitable this will happen. As a result, I would be far happier if people actually did something in the short term whilst they waited for that to happen, rather than sticking to the monotonous nothingness of compliance. That's boring as fuck and sets a boring as fuck example which I'd rather people weren't taught.

Clearly we share different opinions of right and wrong; mainly because I don't buy into any of that morality, fairness, justice bullshit and stick to what I can get away with and what I can't. If I can do something, I will. If I can't, I won't. I'm an aging Consigliere in the fine city of Chicago; I'm not here to be an inspiration or a paragon of whatever mafia-virtues are important to you or anybody else. I'm here to make what money I can, grab as much power as I can and then enjoy the fuck out of it.

Honestly, its rather refreshing for me to hear Credits' opinion on this. Some might not like it, but he speaks the ugly truth of our world.

When you get to the top, you make the rules. You set the standards. Leaders who push the envelope, who change the way things are done and attempt to alter the perception of our world, are the ones that get remembered. People will remember the "group of friends" because they took their power and did whatever the fuck they wanted, literally. Eventually the gods intervened, and for good reason. People will remember Curtis because he tried to re-establish the importance of street presence in leadership. I've heard a lot of people call him names and tell me he was bad at the top, but I can appreciate the fact that he made an effort to change things, in my opinion, for the better. Just to name a third example, people remember Roman because he introduced the whole "godfather council" type of rule. I mean we all knew he was calling the shots, but he tried his best to make it seem as if all city heads were part of the group and in on the decisions. If you ever get to the top, don't just sit up there on your laurels and collect tribute. Push the envelope. Make shit happen. You might not live as long, but you'll definitely live longer in the memories of our world.

Now, to Anna's actual question.

No.

I'm sorry, but no. To expect everything to be consistent is far too much to ask for. Especially when it comes to punishments and such. Every situation is different. Those situations must be handled delicately by the leader in question. In the end, it is their decision, and there will be a reaction either way. If they make a poor decision, other leaders might just find the nards to remove them. 

How a leader decides to interpret the "standards" of our world is up to them. How they uphold them is also up to them. The community and his/her peers will be the judge in the end.