Flamegoo sits in an oddly familiar Chess seat

This game looks familiar chaps care if I sit in?

looks around and takes in the board, moving a pawn forward two spaces

Well chaps I was wondering if you all noticed the same thing as me?

It seems to me I have witnessed some "Associates" walking around doing some pretty stupid things. I mean things from spamming and disrespect right down to flat out rule breaking judging from some of the funerals I have attended. Now what surprises me is the lack of or at least presumed lack of accountability. I see Associates being killed or responding in a "spamming" matter yet the Made Men who speak for them are left walking about to recruit more ill mannered people in their place. I always thought as a Made Man my greatest honor would be bringing someone in under me. Getting the privilege to speak on behalf of a friend. Helping them act and carry themselves in a manner that would eventually see them being made. Of course along the way I would take my cut, after all this is about money no? I guess what has me confused is who is really responsible for these associate? I am sorry but if my associate comes into our streets making a fool of himself and me in the process I would make amends with Tallien and ask that my associate be demoted or killed. I would also be the first person in his funeral offering my sorrow and a general explanation for himself and hopefully anyone on the fence to hear. After all intimidation is as much a cornerstone in our life as money. Accountability is of the utmost importance in my mind. But then again I am only an Earner working towards something bigger in my life however long it may be.

Takes in his opponents latest move and slides his bishop three places forward and to the left

Well, shit happens in this world. When you take someone under your wing, you really don't know anything about them until you spend more time with them. I have a great Earner right now working under me, but then I have a Gangster who failed to follow a city rule, and was shot for it.

There isn't much we can do about stuff like that, and just hope that their next kin learns from it, or doesn't come back at all.

My father learned a harsh lesson on shooting people who haven't been here for 48 hours. I learned from that, and I'm doing great.

Lynching these mistakes made by other people will only enhance the next of kin, and then the next one, so on so fore.

nods and smiles at the latest move on the board

Well Mr. McKnighter my views would state that YOU as the sponsor should have been punished along with your Gangster. I am not meaning to say you should have been killed along with him. But surely YOU told your Boss "Hey this guy is with me" which means you vouch for him, as he does in our world you do. My point is I feel far to often the Associates are being punished while their sponsor's are allowed to walk away with out recourse. Now I don't know the particular's about you case I am speaking in open terms regarding my view.

Moves his Knight into the space just infront of his remaining pawns

Well, think about this.

Lets say you lost an Associate because he did something stupid, out of your control. Now, lets say he's some Goomba and I'm his sponsoring Capo. Are you going to punish a Goomba for being stupid, and the Capo for having an Associate?

Many fathers and mothers die because they don't understand this life of ours, it's the Sponsors job to make sure that they do. If they don't want to learn, or they don't care for their own life and their own Crew, then a Sponsor should, and will accept the Associates death.

Now if the fault happens again under the same Sponsor, there might be an issue with the Sponsor himself.

My case is that my Associate did not follow a City's rule, and was shot because the city rule stated that if he breaks it, he is up to be shot.

Most newer guys think 'Money money money' and run after it, with not a care in the world. It's not an easy think to teach.

This world of ours, two things are for sure. Crew taxes, and death. We deal with death all the time, Associates are here to learn. Some lessons need to be taught harshly.

Understanding the risks and responsibilities of sponsorship should, theoretically, encourage one to choose their associates with greater care.  You shouldn't put your name on the line for any schmuck off the boat.

If you take on an associate, you're taking on the responsibility of training them, teaching them the rules and keeping them on a leash.  Their failure to adhere to the rules is the sponsor's failure to teach them the rules.

Of course the rights and responsibilities of a sponsor aren't etched into stone, it's a case by case and family by family thing.  That's just my personal opinion on it.

Becoming a mademan within a family is a great honour, but along with this honour comes a vast amount of responsibility. If you are willing to vouch for someone and employ them to run errands for you while you work for the family, then you should be also willing to accept the consequences if the associate screws up. After all it's your name that is backing them and their deeds reflect on you.

The sponsor is not responsible for their associate. That would be like saying you must kill a CL everytime a member pickpockets the wrong person. It's illogical. Now, I can see killing the associate. That in itself is punishment enough for the sponsor, as they are losing a source of income for a full week--or until they can find themselves a new associate, whichever is longer.

Punishing the sponsor further will just lead to less use of the sponsorship program.

I find it illogical for many reasons, the most of which is the fact that sponsors really have very little to do to protect themselves from their associate being a complete fuck up. They can mobmail, and they can lure them into the HQ to be dealt with. That's the only things that they can do currently.

Should this be all? No. There should be much more that they can do. But right now there isn't. So we must deal with things as they come.

Hazelspoon, I must say I agree with you. Taking on associates is optional, an alternative to the usual recruiting process. No-one is forcing you to pack your business card full of the details of your associates, but since you give that business card out all the time, you better make sure your associates are towing the line. If one of them does something stupid, that not only does but should reflect poorly on you. If my kids are out of line, people look to me for an explanation - and I have to be ready to give them one. Same with associates in my book. Choose carefully, or not at all.

Hears what is going on and decides to walk over

Well i think the associate should be told all the things not to do and what he can do by the sponsor if the associate doesn't listen its not the sponsors fault he did try

I have to disagree how can the sponsor not be responsible?

They are the ones vouching for the associate, they are the ones who are bringing them into the crew. They are the ones who are supposed to be teaching them the life.

It is the sponsors duty to ensure that their associate knows what they need to know to survive and get on in our life. If they have done their job properly then it should be no problem, but if their associate fucks up then they should also carry the weight of their punishment. I'm not saying that they should be killed do no mistake me, but to sponsor someone you first need to be made and to be made you need to know more than the average joe.

You need to be willing to accept the responsibility that has been bestowed upon you by your boss.

The role of a sponsor is an interesting issue that I've thought about quite a bit since this phenomenom was created within the families. 

I think I'd have to agree with H_F.  And those who say that the sponsor shouldn't be accountable for those he takes under his wing certainly make me raise an eyebrow or two. 

I agree with what Vito said earlier in this discussion.  You have taken this young soldier under your wing.  You are responsible to train this individual in every sense of the word.  It is your responsibility to ensure that the young man or woman you are sponsoring adheres to the code of your family and cosa nostra.  If your "student" then goes off and does something stupid, you are absolutely responsible for his failings.  Because, frankly, his failings are your failings. 

Now, does that mean you should die because this idiot went off the reservation and killed somebody?  Not necessarily.  But being held accountable doesn't always mean death.  It means you take responsibility and you make it right.  Whether that compensation is monetary or otherwise. 

I would assume that you are given the opportunity to be a sponsor because you have shown some ability to help others, and are on the leadership track.  Or at least you are worthy of the honor that your crewleader has bestowed upon you.  Your failings as a sponsor may call into question your ability to take on more responsibility and certainly sponsor an entire family.  Again, doesn't mean you aren't worthy to lead a crew sometime in the future, but the question will be - have you learned from your mistakes?  Have you responded appropriately to the situation? 

And for those of you who shrug, and simply say "not my fault," you clearly don't have what it takes.

Willhayes i understand exactly what you are saying. But on the other hand, loads of people teach their associates very well and tell them all they need to know.

Then out of there OWN stupidity decided to not do what they have been told my their sponsor.

Is this really the sponsors fault? he told him not to. The sponsor cant jump into associates mind and make him not do it, all he can do is tell him not to.

Thank you for listening

I  have to agree with quite alot thats been said here previous, I think maybe if you first become a sponsor and it doesn't go too well and your associate breaks a rule or missbehave, not through your bad teachings but his own stupidty/carelessness the sponsor in question should not instantly be blamed, however maybe they are not quite ready to take on such a responsible/challenging task of being a sponsor so remove their auth to become a sponsor until the boss feels you are capable of trying again,

Just my two cents.

Seagal shrugs

Thats very true prince, it all depends on the circumstances.

The associate might have been taught well but he decided to be stupid you never actually know.

Aside from death, or a fine, the most obvious punishment for those whose associates fail is to be demoted from a rank where they can sponsor - they're clearly not ready for it.

See Cato i dont think thats fair.

in some cases that sponsor is ready and he worked hard to make the associate do the right thing but the associate might decide not to.

Well, obviously it depends on the context. But personally, I wouldn't take on an associate if I thought there was a chance he or she would go nuts. Maybe not demotion straight-off, but if it's through lack of teaching - like the associate says 'But he never told me not to ...' and genuinely hadn't been told, then its appropriate. It just looks so bad for a family to have a load of dead or suicided associates on their business cards. If was a CL, which I'm not, it would be my policy.

Very true i totally understand you. But loads of people do have associates that they think wont go nuts, but one day that associate might not want to be part of the mafia life anymore so they just dont care if they get killed.

Mafiamaxx I think you might be on to a bit of a winner there. Taking away the ability to sponsor would be a fitting punishment for a someone who's associate had gone crazy. Obviously it's not something you would go to straight away if you were a family head, but if one person consistently had associates that went askew you'd definitely have to ask a few questions.

nods at the crowd gathering and ponders his next move

Something has hit me slightly ascue in the many comments I have heard.

I find it illogical for many reasons, the most of which is the fact that sponsors really have very little to do to protect themselves from their associate being a complete fuck up. They can mobmail, and they can lure them into the HQ to be dealt with. That's the only things that they can do currently.

They can kill them, fine them make it known to the family that they are complelety pick pocket friendly for a period of time. On the flip side appropriate behavior can be rewarded. If I were to understand your logic a CL should not be held accountable for his members actions either, I mean they can't really control what someone does right? That seems a tad bit dangerous and unrealistic.

I agree with Will here, some of those in support of NOT taking ownership and responsibility have definately raised my beautiful blond eye brows.

Slides another pawn forward one spot this time