This is a reply to a reply Squishy gave in Innocenza's thread about getting money back out of the fort funds.

"Forts were put in during a time when there was a mentality among an alarming amount of CLs that members were cash cows only.  Forts were put in and this way members could fund their own protection as opposed to funding the credits that the CL will spend on his next account. " - Squishy

I whole heartedly believe that to be a good idea. However, once the forts are up and running, that's it. There's no other place for a player to place their money that will benefit their crew or leader and make sure that their contribution IS being used for the intended purpose. So the continued cash cows for future characters becomes a possibility again. As no one wants to see their money wasted being put into a fund that won't be useful until their crew is about to be killed in war (maybe, as more likely to be dead before forts are destroyed) They'd just contribute to the leader's discretion as always.

I propose that there be a bodyguard fund, similar to the fort fund. This could/should be accessible by the same people as the forts fund, in the same way. No removal of the funds once they're in there.

This will ensure that the crew leader is actually spending the funds on their (and their hands) bodyguard protection, on this character. not preparing for the inevitable and stacking credits for their next run. or worse and I KNOW for certain that it happens, gambling. in 1 way or another, the harty, dice, poker. Whatever form of gambling it is. I've had to be hand to CL's who've done it and felt like shooting them in their face for it (but didn't because I'm better at being a hand than I am at acting on impulse) 

I'd like to add real quick, this isn't aimed about Innocenza (despite it being about a reply to her suggestion) She has in no way lead me to believe she gambles the crew funds or is stacking credits for selfish reasons. I only added this part in case that conclusion may be drawn.

As a huge earner I really like this idea.

I think that the BG fund could go to anyone in the crew but I like the idea of not completely funding the CLs next of kin. It is an aspect that really bothers me because more often then not this sets them up time and time again for a repeat auth because they already have everything, while hard workers (that actually tribute) seem to go without.

In some thinking I would almost want to see a competition fund. Just to completely rule out setting up CLs next of kin but that may be a stretch.

I would have suggested that it be for the CL and hands, but since the CL can just keep swapping out hands to use the bg fund, I guess that probably wouldn't work :p

I suppose in the case of the CL gets to pick and choose where the funds go, the only objection that might be raised is if the funds suddenly start going to brand new 0 day old players who've not actually contributed to the funds but are pally with the CL. Instead of any of the other members of family who've been putting in work.

Perhaps a made man or wise guy + requirement?

I'm not a fan of this idea. In a game that is supposed to be built around trust I think this takes away from that. If you don't trust your CL to use your money then you shouldn't be sending it to them.

This game change will NOT stop players from being able to continue donating to the CL as normal. members who're happy for their CL to use their money for whatever purpose they see fit including gambling or funding the ability to instantly IWP their next "Toby" character can do so. 

It's an addition for anyone who'd like to know their time and contributions aren't being abused and squandered.

Also, perhaps, it'll funnel more of the crew wealth back into the crew as a whole. If the money has to be used for BGs there's less excuse to be ignoring the needs of your members in regards to them being protected. 

My issue is that this is a game fix for a player problem. I don't think we need to hard code in a feature that's purpose is to correct problems with bad crew leaders.

I struggle with this suggestion for the same reason Toby has said. If players want transparency from their leaders on how their money is being spent, that should be up to the members and leaders. How that money is spent is a VITAL indicator as to the quality of leadership. Leaders who gamble away crew money or just use it to buy up credits for future accounts should be treated as shitty leaders because they are shitty leaders. Rather than "coding out" bad leadership, I think the players should be holding them accountable to that. Plus, there are often entirely good ways for leaders to spend money that isn't BGs for themselves, so singling out BG protection constricts what a leader can use the money for.

For as long as I can remember, leaders never report how much money is being spent on defenses because that information is pertinent in wars. And also for as long as I can remember, leaders VERY rarely trust their members (even LHMs at times) on how strong the CL's BGs are.

Perhaps this suggestion presents an opportunity for Made Men (or another rank) to be given some importance. Incorporate that desire for transparency into a privilege in the crew page that [some rank] can see.

• Made Men can see total earnings, but not individual earnings.
• Capos can see individual earnings and total earnings, but no protection information.
• Bosses can see all earnings and LH BG Effective, but not RH or CL.
• Consiglieres can see effective BGs and all earnings.

Now, ranking is directly correlated to how much you trust the individual. Plus, that individual serves as a sense of accountability to the rest of the crew (i.e. "Our total earnings went up $12,000,000 but our protection barely increased, wtf boss?").

TL;DR: Rather than coding out bad behavior, let's incorporate transparency into the existing structure to let players hold each other accountable to the behavior. Puts the onus of "good leadership" on the leader and his/her members, rather than the code.

AS much as that would sound like a good idea. It is very rare for a decent leader to be transparent. What stops a leader from just not promoting anyone so they can't see what any of that is? That could be the effect created with that suggestion without the one that Flippy is suggestion.

While its nice to think that all leaders are "good leaders" history shows us otherwise. I'd rather not see people who got convinced to join a certain family end up screwed over because their leader doesn't "trust" them enough to rank them up.

What stops a leader from just not promoting anyone so they can't see what any of that is?

Nothing! And that's why it's effective. The CL can either trust their member, give them the rank boosts, and appear as someone willing to trust his members OR deny promotions and appear as someone unwilling to trust any members. Because the Made+ rank information is public, other crews will be able to see this paranoia quite easily.

Put simply, the members will stop the leader. If you refuse to promote anyone even to Made Man, no one will want to work for you (why should I give money to someone who doesn't even trust me with seeing our total earnings?). And so leaders have to make decisions about who to trust and who not to trust, rather than just blindly promoting anyone and everyone with no consequences.

I think it is still a very unfair options for players. You can put in a lot of work in 11 days, just to do what? Suicide and join other families that aren't completely untrusting of the world? That seems like a lot of waste. Not every new player is going to understand how things like that work either.

I still think Flippy's has less of a downside then yours does. While I like the idea of yours Aristides, I still see too many cons that could potentially go with it.

Personally I don't think there is enough thought that goes into who does and doesn't get promoted as it is. I welcome anything that makes leaders think more about who they make full members, and who needs to work on earning the trust of the family.

I'm confused, Cin. You think it's unfair to give more power to the members? More transparency on the leader? Make the members more important?

If the leader doesn't trust you, you have to earn their trust. That is the nature of the Mafia. I don't think "people won't get promotions if you make the ranks mean something" is a legitimate argument against giving the ranks any authority. Some people simply aren't trustworthy. Some people won't get Made. But that's what happens when you give something importance; it takes some discernment as to whether or not it's a good judgment of the character.

People already don't get promotions. Is that a violation of fairness? No. They just haven't deserved it yet, in the eyes of their leader. I fail to see why making the ranks more important, and require more trust, could possibly be misconstrued as "unfair" at all, much less "very unfair." You're literally putting power in the hands of people who aren't leaders. You're holding leaders accountable. You're forcing leaders to make decisions on who they trust and don't trust.

That's the Mafia.

Please remember that not everyone deserves every promotion for which they are eligible, an idea that has become rampantly popular in recent years.

"If the leader doesn't trust you, you have to earn their trust."

This is the opposite of the original point of this suggestion, Aristides. Entertaining as it is to see another recycled made man significance argument, please take that to another thread.

OOC, in character? throw it up in the streets, take it to mob mail, irc, where ever buy not here. This game suggestion isn't about how anyone feels regarding crew leaders trusting their members enough to promote them. 

In fact it was the opposite. It was about giving players a way of contributing to their family, to their own protection, whilst they don't know their crew leader. It's fine to suggest that we just get rid of bad leaders, and idealised this, and just fantasy thinking that... but it's not how things work.

I started by saying I'd been hand to CLs that abused the money that was contributed to them. The following makes me think you didn't pay attention. OR you failed to continue suggesting how more than the hands seeing the abuse of funds would change the situation.

"(i.e. "Our total earnings went up $12,000,000 but our protection barely increased, wtf boss?")"  <=== then what, exactly? asking wtf boss, doesn't change the fact the money was wasted. Lies can be used to cover the disappearance of the funds.

As well as this, with the idea i'm suggesting implemented, people won't have to continually question where funds are going. They'll know for themselves, say, 50% of my donations are definitely going into up keeping and buying BGs for family members, the other half to where ever else the boss feels like putting it. If that's gambling because the 1m harty is up to half a billion, fine. As long as I know not all 100% my time and financial contributions here is being piddled down the drain.

Again, I'm not suggesting the ability to donate to the crew leader as it is done now should be changed. If players feel like they want to give their crew leader all the money directly, then so be it. Nothing will stop them.

I'm simply offering an idea that players be given an option to know that their contributions are going somewhere worth while to their protection, and the protection of the family. 

"Lies can be used to cover the disappearance of the funds."

Lying?! IN THE MAFIA?! EMBEZZLEMENT? BY CRIMINAAAAAAAALS?!

I don't mean to patronize you, it just seems like every reason why this should be implemented is exactly the kind of character we're supposed to be portraying. A bad leader, surely, but they're criminals. What do you expect?

I think Aristides hit it on the head with that one. This is a MAFIA game. Would it be great to have super transparent leadership where all the money is being funneled back into things that directly help the members of the crew? NO. Because that would be horribly unrealistic. This game already has enough issues with remembering the timeline and such, I don't think we need to add in a feature that controls where the CL's money goes. Like Aristides said, if they gamble away crew money or just use it to buy up credits for future accounts, they should be treated as shitty leaders because they are shitty leaders. And others will see that and, ideally, they wouldn't get auth'd again anytime soon. There's plenty of examples of people who have achieved auth once or twice and failed miserably at it and no one would think to auth them again. 

In the real Mafia, the leaders absolutely spent money their lower ranking men earned on frivolous things, big houses, nice clothes, etc. They left plenty of money to their children, wives, girlfriends, etc. That's the way the Mafia works - you get to the top, you get those benefits. A good leader also gives back to their crew, does comps and ensures protection. It's up to the leader to earn the trust, not up to players to force the leader to do things a certain way. 

Aristides there is a difference between not deserving it and people just being asshats. 

You could have a player whose not the leaders best friend but they earn, they hit, they do whatever is necessary to further the leader along. Great, awesome member, right?

Well you could have that leader turn around and play the "I dont trust them" card without any real merit and never promote them.

Then that same person could watch another who lies to their leader, doesn't put anything in the family and be "trusted" because they are besties.

So anything that eliminates that is great. What you propose is ideally awesome. But it would screw over people just because they were new or not necessarily the most popular. That doesn't mean they don't work hard.

Lying in the mafia isn't outrageous, we see it all the time in the streets. That's to be expected but why ruin something for other people because leaders feel oh so entitled to every dime you got? No offense but most of the people under the leaders didn't pick them to be bold. Its not a democracy.

Giving some power back to how money is spent isn't entirely a bad idea. I understand it could be stressful for leaders, and I am sure there are plenty of other things they do spend money on such as auths, crew competitions (if you have a leader that can be bothered to give back to the family working so hard under them), hitlists, mayor taxes etc.

But this idea doesn't take away from people tributing to those decent leaders straight up and trusting them with the money. This does give new players the ability to put money towards funding the crews BGs and knowing that is where their money is being spent.

I don't think everyone will strictly just donate to a BG fund, but I do think its a great idea if you are unsure about a leader.