"But men of Made status should be allowed to say their piece without fearing death and maybe the streets would have more great conversations of this caliber."

That's where you're wrong. Made Men don't suddenly earn a "freedom of speech". Usually, bosses know NOT to promote asshats to Made Man, because GOOD Made Men know how to hold their tongue. "Omerta", to "be a man", is to be silent, but stern. Quite the contrary to what YOUR made man has done in the streets this day. You can't possibly think we will tolerate direct threats to our people, JUST because the person is Made.

Even with all this, you STILL haven't answered my question. Honestly, I doubt you will. The presence of Godfather Deimne has that effect on a lot of people.

But men of Made status should be allowed to say their piece without fearing death and maybe the streets would have more great conversations of this caliber.

Those same made members are expected to know what can and can't be said. When what is said is a broad sweeping threat against all cities, including New York, that's not the action of someone deserving to be a friend of ours. That's simply moronic and putting their life at risk. Should a godfather, such as my good self, feel strongly about protecting their city, I have no doubt they will be extremely upset about this.

Being a man of Made status I feel I have earned the right to address those issues and state my opinions on them as well.

Again, you may address these issues... hell, you're in a position where you could actively seek to change them. But if you choose to address them by bitching and moaning in a manner that pisses off me and many others, you've made a horrible mistake. Did you ever once seek to change this rule? Did you even attempt to change it in your own city? Yet you come out and question the leadership of the eight cities, insulting them as hand holding pussies. I couldn't care less about the words chosen to express your ideas, curse your fucking ass off, what I care about is the ideas and the intentions behind them. When someone chooses to run to the streets throwing insults and wild statements in nothing more than an attempt to 'shake things up' or 'have some fun', then I'd strongly suggest they give more thought to ensuring they don't piss people off in their 'fun'.

There would be a relatively simple way to settle one of the issues put forward here. Pickpocketing is such a divisive issue that it may never be possible to set a blanket rule concerning it, however, setting a blanket rule over death threats would be simple.

If someone announces a death threat in any way (tattoos, mails, etc.) then they're on their own and deserving of any action that a death threat may or may not elicit. If a weakling announces a death threat then they'll be crushed and if a strong leader announces one then it'll make everyone cower. Exactly what we expect in this thing of ours.

To the actual topic at hand, I feel that pickpocketing is so meaningless, both by means of the reward for a success and the waste of time necessary to perform the act, that I don't get involved in pickpocketing at all. I can waste my time chasing higher pursuits like drinking beer or eating cake and get more satisfaction.

Blanket rules at somewhat at odds with the principals of Cosa Nostra - we are not all equal, we are not all bound by the same things and thus the punishment never fits the crime, it fits the criminal who commits it. A Made Man and a Thug should not be treated the same way, which is incorporated into some pickpocketing policies already.

I don't see the problem with a blanket rule saying that you're responsible for the words that come out of your mouth. You could easily argue that its not an issue for the Honored Society but I would hope that leaders of cities would hold their families and crews to a standard that if you speak words or perform an action you're responsible for it.

No man or woman worth their button would freely and uncaringly speak of death threats without the necessary support to back-up their words. A man once said, "If you're willing to threaten someone with taking their life you better damn well ready to put your life on the line." I believe thats true and its a reason why people shouldn't carelessly throw words out without carefully considering it.

OST takes a sip from her flask that she recently started taking around with her.

I have a question. I know it's rare but here it comes. Now would you consider it still disrespectful even if the city rules say you can pickpocket and the person's profile says nothing about pickpocketing so you go ahead and pickpocket them. Now should they mention it to you and you give back their money or hell even give back their money right after, would that not be showing respect?Now I know in this scenario you didn't ask but ultimately why should you have to if they are lower ranked and don't even have anything on their profiles to state their preference for it? In my opinion they should be thankful enough I returned their money in the first place. Do correct me if I am reading all this wrong.

I'm not advocating a lack of responsibility for the idiotic things some people say. A blanket rule on pickpocketing and a liability to be held accountable for the words that come out of your mouth are entirely different things.

Well well well... What a stir this has caused eh?

As for Mickey. He is dead, that is all that needs to be said on the subject. Considering he is now lying at the bottom of the river you can pretty much guess my stance on that subject.

I want to talk to you about my RHM. See, he is my right hand man. With that said, you better be damned sure he's gonna stick up for one of my button men. Thing with Ole Floyd is that he's fiercly fucking loyal. He will stand up for one of our button men, myself and my city as much as he can and until his dying breath. Why? Well hell, it's his damned job to that's why. A man as loyal and as emotional about loyalty and our button men will stick up for him no matter what.

He's my right hand man (I said that already didn't I?). That puts him second in command of my entire city. Meaning, if something within the city rules needs changing and/or is wrong. You better be damned sure he's going to have a major say and possibly be the driving force behind a new or changed rule. This is what my right hand man and Consigliere are for. To offer advice and opinions when needed. I need atleast one person who can tell me exactly how they feel within my city, don't I? Hell, even if people don't agree with that. I most certainly do.

Now, all that has needed to be said has been said, i'm sure I heard some talk about a blanket rule on the accountability of pickpocketing? I did? Great.

Let's hear some ideas. I'd be interested to hear them.

Please do not make a blanket rule for pickpocketing.

As already stated blanket responses on anything are completely at odds with whom we are and our entire progression system. Why make your bones just to be treated like a thug? Why be adopted by a Godfather and join a family just to be cast aside like a chump when that family should be looking out for its own? For this reason I can completely understand MississippiMobMarley's decision to back one of his men of honour. It isn't my place to question whether it was right to do so, but I can certainly understand the thought process behind doing it.

We aren't civilians, we aren't governed by laws and we don't ever get told what to do. Power is our law and we have to hope power lies with those who understand, respect and continue the fundamental tenants of our thing which brought us to this point. One of the key aspects of that thing is that you progress, you develop, you build contacts, you become more than an associate, you become more than a friend of theirs, you become a brother a sister - in short, a man of honour. To slam a blanket over all of that and group all the established names and faces into one category is an insult to our heritage.

The only blanket rules we have at the moment (and apologies if I miss any) are no killing of -48s and not to whore members. One is completely motivated by OOC reasons which we can tolerate and the other is in preservation of what a blanket rule on pickpocketing would harm.

In terms of counter proposals to a blanket rule, I would suggest that cases should be judged on their merits. I'm in Los Angeles and PoisonousJelly wants to put his hands in my pockets? I think the fact that I'm a Capo needs to be respected. I'm a Capo, not a nobody. Mux has felt me established enough and I've made my bones in New York, a fact that should be respected across all the cities. I have my own connections and you can't lay your hands on a Made guy without just reason. I think that needs to be accounted for.

I think Philly have a good system in principle, I think if I'm a nobody and you lay your hands on me, as a Made guy, well that sounds like tough shit for me. But if you misjudge the situation and I'm a connected individual then you may well regret coming anywhere near me. It isn't as cut and dried in the realities of most situations, which is why I suggest a case by case basis. I'm not advocating that every disagree or scuffle is brought before the head of the city, because you obviously have more important things to do - reading the Gwarble Barble for example. However, we impliment structures within our families, associates should turn to their sponsors, sponsors should look to their Capos, Capos to the Bosses and so on. These are respected titles and maybe we should expect people to live up to the names we're bestowing on them.

(Should read: don't ever get told what to do by civilian authorities. Fundamental tenets. Disagreement.)

Though it pains me to admit it, I have to agree with Grumbles... I mean Gwarble.

I, personally, will never agree to a blanket rule on pickpocketing. The rules on whoring and -48's were done for exceptional reasons and the greater good of cosa nostra throughout the eight cities.

A rule on pickpocketing would simply be to make things easier, avoid potential disputes and take the leadership out of leading. Leadership isn't about ticking the boxes in a 'play book'. It's about using judgement, negotiations and intelligence to excel in this world. A leader should have to decide how their family handles the potentially thorny issue of pickpocketing and if or when disagreements arrise... have to deal with these consequences.

Having differences between our cities is part and parcel of our way of life. If all cities had a set of equal blanket rules, it would be a huge negative not a benefit. It's up to the city leader in question to set how their city operates. If you as a soldato don't like it, fine, avoid the city. If it goes a step further and goes as far as upsetting other cities, well, then they must deal with the consequences of that. The bottom line, you earn the right to decide how to run your city when you earn a city for you.

It's ok big guy, it was only a matter of time.

I'm still firmly in the "Gwarble - never heard of her" camp and refuse to support her ideas.

There is something that confuses me:

PJ killed the Made Man but defended Floyd defending the Made Man. Wouldn't PJ killing the Made imply that Floyd should have done the same if he was the acting head at the time or at least a very trusted member of the acting head of the city?

Please do not make a blanket rule for pickpocketing.

Gwarble and Deimne have already said why this is a bad idea. Blanket rulings should be, and are, kept to an absolute minimum. This would be unnecessary and more than that, it would be damaging.

"A Made Man and a Thug should not be treated the same way, which is incorporated into some pickpocketing policies already."

Too bad this isn't implemented across the board. Seeing Thug RHMs and LHMs, newcomers may find it pretty confusing. One might find it difficult to know where the respect line is drawn with regards to things such as pick-pocketing.

We have to make some allowances for the realities of our world. Thugs as RHM and LHM are appointed at low ranks as a result of the level of trust that is required to hold these positions.

(Can't really deal with this in character. In the real world, a second in command would not have had access to a button that killed every member of a family instantly without any recourse or chance of failure. The people trusted with these positions tend to be awarded them regardless of rank as a result. I can tolerate this, even though I agree it is something of a faux pas. Perhaps if it was a mandatory requirement that only Made Men+ could be given these roles, then more thought would go into the decision to promote to a member of the family - undoubtedly a good thing)

I am more than just a Thug. I am actually a Godfather.

CrazyNine, one thing you and I guess everyone here is unaware of...

My trusted Right Hand Man is not only the deceased boss, but a blood relative of his. Now, I don't know were you come from but where I am from you don't go around shooting your brother in the head unless absolutely imperative. Now, you can argue he threatened to shoot anyone who picked his pocket and a threat that has consequences should be dealt with as soon as. However, the threat was empty. Mickey(GRHS) learned his lesson and retracted his quote to prove as such. Due to his brother Marley's guiding influence. Unfortunately for Mickey his mistakes had already been made and he had already earned a large cement footing.

Now, Mickey was a Made Man of the Jelly Crime Syndicate. As such I trusted him. Alot of you may find that laughable. I don't. I know for a fact that this man was respectful to me as his boss, his brother as his boss, JkL as his LHM and his family around him as well... his family. He would never have shot at anyone without his bosses prior permission. No matter what opinions you have taken from this hear conversation today, I DO take care in choosing my button men. But hell, i'm not going to go in to that. That's MY business and it's LA's business.

I wasn't questioning the people you promote to Made Men.

I was just finding it a bit contradictory that you found Mickey's offense grave enough to kill him, yet Floyd came out here *defending* Mickey's position and you defended Floyd's actions.

My reasoning is, if Mickey was so much in the wrong, how come defending such a wrong is not at the very least looked down upon?

Again, in this case, I am not implying things should be done differently. I'm sure you DO have a reason for all your actions, I just can't imagine which reason could make this not contradictory.