OK, let's canvas your thoughts on something.

I've long thought that City Hall should be able t intervene in something.  So open your minds whilst I explain this...

It's the middle of a war, people are dying left, right and centre.  All of a sudden, the police are everywhere, almost like they're in a spaceship, but it isn't a scapeship, it's the Streets and they've arrested the CLs and 

Then brought the CLs to a special place and that place is a room (OOC, it's IRC) and there and then they have to talk and try to broker a treaty.

Meanwhilse the police have arrested lots of people for all the of killings and sucj like and the jails are full of the imprisoned people.

Then when a treated is arranged, the peoples that are in the jail can get out.

I think this is realistic because that's what happens at times in the past years.

In a peanutshell, what I am thinking about  is the menpolice arrested the CLs and then they get a chance to to go a room (OOC IRC) and negotaite.

This belongs in the suggestions forum. 

Hello RoryRourke, it belongs in the head of every man Jack in this thing, and you should be promoting that. 

Thank you.

If you start a war/takedown, whatever, you should finish it or die trying.

Anyone who brokers a 'ceasefire' or a 'treaty' or whatever the fuck it is, is an idiot and is not worthy of being a leader in my opinion.

If player A attacks player B due to whatever, they should follow through. The lives that were lost on the offensive side would be WASTED in a peace treaty/ceasefire.

I would not want to be under a leader who cannon fodders its members.

But surely leading men to their certain death *is* cannon fodder?

If you're starting a war you know you can't win, then you're also not a very good leader.

I know in some instances you know you'll be struck first, and you want to make the first move, even if it is futile.

Sometimes you have to do what you feel is right.

I still think 'peace keeping' or whatever it is you said is an awful idea.

mama always told me; don't start something you can't finish.

Mint, I don't mean to make fun of you but I don't think you really understood it - maybe i can try and explain it more simply?

"I would not want to be under a leader who cannon fodders its members."

Mint, this is common practice. Are you for real?

You may make fun of me if you'd like, kuku. Such things on this game don't bother me anymore.

You can try to poke fun all you want, fellow, but I understood it and trying to berate it simply won't work as intended.

As for the other person; Am I for real? Of course I am. I chose very carefully on my leader at the start of this journey. I picked one I know that wouldn't willingly throw me to the wolves, or be cannon fodder.

If push came to shove, I'd willingly die for the family, which is different then cannon fodder.

'Common practice'. It's common practice because sometime about.. 6-7 months ago, most of the leaders ingame lost backbone and just reverted to whatever was easy.

fun times.

Fair enough Mint.  But it has been longer ten 6-7 months.

Two things we do not need which you are suggesting:

1. More admin intervention

2. More measures that create stagnancy among leadership.

In fairness to Mint, he chose well. I was messing about a while back as was bored of the game and made a character for the sake of it. I ended up in LA and what I saw was a really good family and a leader that was really attentive to all of his members. I was pretending to be a n00b of course and the extra attention that was given to me by the hands and the leader was something that you seldom get these days and made me very pleased with my choice.

It even made me re-think my decision of going rogue and instead I simply allowed that character to die.

honesty, 

i am very familiar with the Kuku bloodline and I think we have an imposter. I expected better from Kuku as far as street threads go