Walking down the street Kodak stumbles upon a few days old newspaper. Skimming through it he noticed a familiar name and decides to read it. As he's finishing the final sentences a man walks up and before he could get a word out Kodak interrupted.

"The thought of a "Open" world... Something my farther would say he dreamed about. I'm glad I am getting to experience this for him. "

In total confusion the guy reaches in his pockets and says

"Um. Yes that's awesome, but do you know where I can buy drugs?"

Kodak laughs while thinking to himself

"Yea, I'm going to like this world."

I think for those of us that have had our parents and grand parents and great grand parents - you get the idea!- in this world over the years this will be a very welcomed return to a world our ancestor's knew and loved. Too long have the streets been dominated by a minority few and too long have those that may not have a recognised status but hold passed down family experience been made to be quiet. Those afraid to be challenged respectfully but articulately here will remain quiet I am sure - for those that have felt oppressed and restricted by a regime that dictated the select few held more powerful words than some others...this is what the streets are for - to talk, discuss, agree or disagree respectfully...

RobOakheart I welcome these changes back to a life of old...I am sure some will struggle at first with what appears to be a 'new' way in this world I also see that there might be some grey areas too but essentially those can only be worked out I think as and when the hiccups arrive - the community - the uppers will ultimately shape this as it develops. 

goes back to drinking Jack Daniels on the rocks and she lights a cigar...

Hello Bjorn_Ironside, thank you for joining us here and asking a good question.

The short answer would that by that time the standing leadership can debate on what the best approach given the circumstances is.
Personally I think that when we reach that moment we have come a long way as a community. It means that incidents that happened took place for just reasons. It means families survived because they worked hard for themselves and our society. It means a broad set of talent has been given the chance to proof themselves, which no doubt would have led to a more diverse and interesting society that matured, or returned, to a healthy attitude.

At that point, when 2 equally well performing groups of mafioso chose to engage each other in battle, they are to battle it out on their own, protecting or growing their turf. Or fight over whatever started the incident. We need to move away from the idea that multiple families fight devastating wars over incidents that usually only involve 2 families, if not just 2 members of said families. We shouldn't allow some Capo to under-perform, get heat for it, and then come to his aid with devastating results. We are in a business of profit, staying out of reach of the FBN dogs and to have a wonderful life. Elements who undermine that common goal, shouldn't be given the chance to mess up for hundreds of others. We should stop allowing ourselves to kill half our community for bullshit reasons, but simply let the people who are involved in a dispute battle it out. Removing that "certainty" that there is a well-trained killer squad ready to jump to their aid, gives people the need to up their efforts, to not allow slip-ups, to be trained in marksmanship themselves and to make sure their attitude doesn't bring them problems.

Yes, there will be issues between two families that do outstanding work for themselves and the community. That's really their problem and they should fight it out. As a society, being honest about what we're here for, we shouldn't expect there to be peace all around. This plan isn't aimed at that, but it does try and create a place with a sense of realism in how our battles play out.

Noticing there is still a crowd of people, Kodak decides to take a few moments to listen and add to the conversation.

My father would tell me stories. Stories where he had to pick his weapon up to defend people who's problems had nothing to do with him or his city. He said he did this often and although he was savage, it surely was not fun for him. Of course he had no problem aiding allies but that too comes with a price. According to my father in the world before it was almost as if you had no choice but join in on wars. I mean yes you can always say No to join the fight, but all that does is potentially hinder political relationships. 

To hear that groups will be able to settle their difference themselves, sounds like a prospering world to me. Sounds like a world where blood is only shed when it has to be. And It also sounds like to me people will not be dying because "it's just time to war." 

Kodak leaves with excitement

I do have a question of sorts. If someone who has taken up the opportunity in one of the open cities, they are not taking up the auth as the usual route, correct? This would seem that those in bold and those in the hand positions wearing former crew tags on their sleeves or shirts or wherever they carry them around would be suggesting that they have some allegiance to another city.  If this were the case it could be suggested that other cities are in fact running others other than their own.

I am not saying this is the case, but the assumption could be made for as long as those leaders wear those tags. Would it not be better that they wipe those tags from themselves? I am just asking because given my understanding of what you have spoken of Mr Oakheart that would be counter productive to what these cities are supposed to be and how those "auths" came about setting up.

Dusty we can assume anything. Many of these families have members with badges on their back from places all over the country. Being proud of your roots is different than being loyal to someone from your past. It might be better to wipe these for those that cannot get past that, but a badge is just an object. Loyalty is much more than that and whether or not the badge is there has no difference in determining if someone is loyal to an outside source. Look at this badge here.

Bobby points to a badge on his side that reads 

Forever an Exile

This here has been handed down to me through the generations, I personally have no idea who these people are or truthfully what they stood for. But my family was a part of it, and it meant enough to them to hand this patch down through the generations until it wound up in my hands. Now this group might have kin that are alive and around here today, but that means nothing to me. This is just a tribute to my ancestors and what they have been though. I understand this isn't the exact example that you posed but the reasoning can be the same, we are just proud of where we came from. To answer your question though, yes. We are not loyal to those to which we have came from. We send no information or contributions to these individuals since our departure. 

In a world that is changing or at least attempting to, do you think these things give the right impression to old bloodlines that may be sneaking in a quick peek? Or do you think this will tell them that it is just the same as it has always been? Impressions do matter and when you are trying to change the mind set of the community and draw it out of what it was I would think this would be an important aspect to look at.

You are right, anyone can assume anything they want. But are we really changing if we hold onto past objects? Past grudges? Past allegiances? Or are we falling straight back to the same patterns we have tried to rid ourselves of?

I'm not really sure this is a problem. 

Wouldn't you expect any thugs or gangsters trying to make a name for themselves to appraise themselves with current expectations, rather than making assumptions based upon badges and tags which may or may not mean anything? I know I would.

On the flip side, it could be said that the person is using the tools given to them. They can check out the details you choose to share or not, and the tags you wear are a reflection of you whether you choose to believe it or not. So yes, impressions can be important. Every little bit of them can be in the long run. 

These can give off the wrong impression from time to time. For instance if I wrote a tag that said I was pickpocket friendly and then went about mugging, it would be safe to assume that I was a hypocrite. And that assumption if that was the fact would be correct. Personally, I would rather not give off that impression or any other that could potentially be bad for myself.

Now in the case of leaders, those lines that find themselves back on the shores popping in could end up staying. If you give off the wrong impression that maybe you perhaps didn't mean to, it could cost you potentially a very decent member. How would you know?

Hypocrisy I would consider be a negative trait whereas being proud of your roots I would consider to be positive or neutral. I have always found that if something can be taken one way or another, it's best to just find out by yourself by communicating with whoever in question prior to running to the masses to get their input on an assumption that might have no bearing which I think your concern falls under.

Someone who has had many kin in this thing of ours will tend to reach out to familiar faces and the friends of their kin's past to see what they have missed in their travels back to the old country. Very few just take the long ride back over to just look at a few people out in the streets and turn away to leave. We can compare it to the expression of reading a book by it's cover. 

Yes, assumptions can and will matter but what you have described cannot be a negative assumption at face value like what you are comparing it to. You have to have interaction to get your negative result of hypocrisy, your patch stating you don't care if someone steals from you alone does not give the assumption you state. There first has to be an interaction to get this result and once it happens it will no longer be an impression, it will be fact. Also, if your example of loyalty is the impression that makes the return of a line from the old country turn back they would first have to understand the dynamics of what is going on around in country. Which would mean they have taken the time to look around and interact with others. So I still don't see how this is all adding up, it's quite the stretch.