Mr. Mike..Might I ask you what your kin or even you yourself would have done differently? Absolutely nothing..While Don Oakhart is relitively new to my acquaintance, at least he and a few other leaders have seen the need for and embraced the idea of change. One thing I've noticed through the generations is many people complain about the same people rising to the top, over and over, exerting tight control over our world while other individuals rarely have a chance to prove their worth, are the same people that resist change, allowing the old cycle to continue. So, Mr. Mike, you have two choices..Shut up, or put out some fresh ideas that you think would bring about the changes that many are looking for..

That was handled, er, interestingly...  

Mr Li, while I think we are both standing out here in the streets on this chilly October evening trying to make the same point...you come across a tad aggressive! Surely unintended?

My apologies SirMixAlot, I was merely trying to make the point that instead of begrudging people for their lack of success in trying to implement change, perhaps he could be a team player, And come up with ideas that would be helpful in bringing about change..

Passing back through the crowd with a steaming cup of coffee and catching the last exchange, Mercedes can't help but wonder, what with the chill in the air and Chun-Li's fine silk blouse, how SirMixAlot has mistaken the lady for a 'mister'.

What happened was obviously a awful thing a lot of potential was lost but unfortunately it was a necessary evil the keep this dream and community going so my condolences to the fallen and I'll raise my glass to Don robertoakheart gate and nakamura 

While i was out of the country when this transpired, i did sit and watch it unfold. I know ALL of the decisions that had taken place with these sets of events have been both welcomed and unwelcome and have split people in two. As these things tend to do, which is ok, war is a contentious pastime. Its an act that will always have winners and looser and it will always have arguments of equal stature for both sides, thats what makes it so fascinating. 

Ive heard people saying- "This place is still being micro-managed and nothing has changed"  "It was a DT internal matter and nobody else should have got involved" 

Ill address the second comment first; The irony of such a statement is this, That is exactly the old-aged thinking of the past. Yes each city head was given the chance to lead their own operations and cities as they see fit but there is a whole ethos change that sat underlying all of those efforts to run your own city- the favor system. This is where the change has happened, until know we have never had to see it invoked. With every action comes a reaction. This is the change, this, for me, now sets the president and the world can start to believe in the change and buy into the favor system. For a mechanics point of view, im glad such events transpired, it gave the world the nudge it needs to start to see and accept the change of overall responsibility.

As it worked out, AnomanderRakes stock was considerably higher than that of Mr. Evolve & Ms. Payne. And they paid with their lives for their actions. Dont get me wrong, they had every right to make a decision like this, after all, this was within the walls of DT but they completely overlooked the ethos change. Its a viscous game to play sometimes. They took a gamble, it didnt pay off because of the underlying change that will sit idly until its needed. 

That leads me onto the first comment, Things are not being micro-managed, the opposite IMO. Its manged on a much global-er scale- as and when required. As you can see, each city is allowed to police it how they want but there is always that underlying favor issue.  I for one love it- the concept that is, not who lost their lives. 

They did what they tought was good to do eventough it was a bit too much but the lack of communication has caused this war and their ends.

As it worked out, AnomanderRakes stock was considerably higher than that of Mr. Evolve & Ms. Payne. And they paid with their lives for their actions. Dont get me wrong, they had every right to make a decision like this, after all, this was within the walls of DT but they completely overlooked the ethos change. Its a viscous game to play sometimes. They took a gamble, it didnt pay off because of the underlying change that will sit idly until its needed. 

I personally see nothing different with this system than the old, insta. All this is NY looking after the interests it had in the City. I've heard from sources within DT that NY did indeed favour Anomander and with him being removed, they then took out his adversaries. How is that different than the old system where a city head that you like dies, and you remove the others because you dont trust them? Same thing in my opinion thats just dressed a little different.

The people in Detroit made the move they did because Anomander was never around, neither was Right Hand. The left hand approached the other leaders in Detroit with their concerns and apparently it was decided they would ask him to step down. When that conversation was approached Anomander went entirely the other way and demanded he be able to move to the central district and assume command of the City as he had earned it. Given his gun was big enough to take down anyone in Detroit, Ophelia and Evolve made the choice to have one of their own shoot Anomander and his hand and be done with it. This was a move designed to help the city grow. Clearly it backfired and whilst I disagree with this, NY did what they believed they had to do and in all honesty thats nothing new and nothing that should be scorned. This is the life we lead.

My only quarrel is it being spoken of as some sort of new system when in reality its no change at all.

This leads me to another point, we were told that people would receive the favour mentioned above due to their commitments to the community and to the betterment of life in these fine cities. This is what confuses me. If Anomander isn't around and his own family are seeking change because of this, how on earth did he still curry enough favour with those in charge when he is offering nothing to the world we live in? Seems odd to me. 

Still, as I said before, the move itself was entirely up to NY, and Chicago as I do believe there was assistance from the Windy City too. I can't argue against the action taken as its something thats been commonplace in this life for as long as time can recall, but I do take umbrage with it being painted as something new when it isn't and especially when it seems contradictory to the ethos we are meant to be living by.

As usual Slash has take the head of that particular nail and smashed the fuck outta it. You can sprinkle glitter on a turd, but at the end of the day, that turd is still a turd.

Save for two gentlemen who make the decision, nobody knows who is "in favour" and nobody knows who is "out of favour" because it's an entirely subjective opinion. Come to think of it, we don't even really know the parameters which place someone "in favour". Activity isn't one of those parameters, clearly. The majority opinion of the city clearly isn't taken into account either, so really, it appears to be nothing more than the opinion of the leading elite - no change there.

As has been mentioned on another corner - there was a lot of needless killing of those who slept. A mass mail was circulated instructing an attack on Detroit, from what I hear. Despite being one such victim, I can understand the why of it but it doesn't differ from the norm, does it? Regimes removing someone who attacked their friend, then punishing the city by issuing a scorched earth policy; sending out a warning to future attackers about who is really in charge - no change there.

At the end of the day what has genuinely changed, other than the folk at the top pulling the trigger?

Who will be the next victim of this 'progressive and innovative' approach to leadership and will it be another whole city who pays the price?

Time will tell, I guess.

You raise valid concerns, Slash. Thank you for your addition to this discussion.

The difference is that Don Rake had shown his worth to the community in recent times and therefor he was in favour. Surely the greater community would be less impressed if his decreased involvement would continue, but even than we wouldn't necessarily bring him down as he was no threat to the society. Based on his recent absence I can imagine if other Detroit uppers weren't happy with Don Rake assuming city lead. But before they vented their unhappiness, they should've made sure they were in higher standing than Don Rake himself in the area of efforts.

The difference with old ways is that if Mr. Evolve and Ms. Payne were frontrunners in the society and were obviously pushing themselves and their families to adapt to a new mentality, they wouldn't have been killed. In that case they were adding to the community and we'd protect that, as it's in the communities interest.
I don't judge them for not doing that, as more people are not. But they shouldn't have made a powerplay, how justified it might seem, without having shown the intent to be better than who they would remove.

To stick with the example of BobbyMunson. Say Mr. Edison would have had the idea of electric light and even had a working setup in his home, but never showed it to the people. But instead he would take a gun and killed people who didn't make use of his marvellous concept. Surely the community would get in action and kill this man on a killing spree. Perhaps that would be a loss to the community, for Mr. Edison could've added a lot to it. The problem was... he didn't, but instead he chose a very aggressive approach for telling others they didn't work with his brilliant ideas. The wrong approach.

The idea of this time is simple: Add, bring forth ideas, contribute to positivity and engagement. Because unless people do, they should be very reserved in taking offensive actions to bystanders. When people are not showing the public efforts for the greater community there is no reason for them to start claiming more control over that community, which they aren't even contributing to.
 

And Ehrmantraut - We will try and make things more transparent regarding who is in favour. Keep in mind that Detroit had two leaders who had a say in that, but one of them retired, mainly for reasons within Detroit. The other was killed by citizens of Detroit. Detroit is to blame for ending up without leaders who ensured their protection.
 

The lack of transparency in who is favoured based on what should give uncertainty at most. It shouldn't lead to a reaction of taking power and killing others, because that would be the most absurd interpretation of what is communicated. Once you don't exactly know what your context is, it's unwise to start showing aggression towards that context. More people have shown to have questions regarding protection status and how engaging other parties would work. In each of those cases we provided information to how it works, mentioning whether we've seen people's efforts in the community and generally advised people to remain reserved in attacking others if there's no factual reason that their opponents are a threat. In a business orientated world it makes sense to investigate where you stand and what your context is like. Mr. Evolve and Ms. Payne could've taken the same approach, but instead they made an assumption on how things would go based on their own beliefs.

Thank you for taking the time to come out to clarify matters Don Oakheart.

I think the community would appreciate more transparency, but would it lead to a more aggressive approach from the in-favour leaders, knowing they were indeed in-favour? I'd hope not, but who knows. I do appreciate you're trying to lead the community in a new direction, and that is difficult especially when you meet resistance to change. However, from the outside looking in, it just seems that - whilst there may be a lot of good intentions - nothing has actually changed. The bigger boys still enforce their views on cities which should be outside their jurisdiction.

Sure, you've earned that right. You bode your time, and you took your chances, so it's only right that you get to dictate how the country should be run. My point is that the change in attitude hasn't really taken and perhaps that's because it hasn't filtered down from the top. This favour system is just another way of ensuring your collective control remains in your grasp. It's no different to the approach many regimes have adopted really, is it?

Preaching one thing whilst practising another is only going to lead to an inevitable failure in my humble opinion. If you want change, be the change. Either you want to allow the cities the ability to self-govern, or you want to dictate how things are run across the country.

One thing I will applaud you and Don Gato on, however, is your approach to open and frank discussion. It's refreshing to be able to discuss these matters with the upper echelon such as yourself without being castigated for questioning matters. Kudos on that.

I personally see nothing different with this system than the old, insta. All this is NY looking after the interests it had in the City. I've heard from sources within DT that NY did indeed favour Anomander and with him being removed, they then took out his adversaries. How is that different than the old system where a city head that you like dies, and you remove the others because you dont trust them? Same thing in my opinion thats just dressed a little different.

Slash, in essence i suppose you're correct. But, like with any war or any take-down, with good reasoning you can achieve anything.  Like you say, it can be dressed up how ever any wants it to. These actions are the essence of our world, they always have been and they will be long after we have left this world. My view point is more mechanically though and the effects the mechanics of such an ethos change has on us as a community and how it effects the actions that we might have, in the past, not thought twice about doing. This scenario is case-in-point for that logic. 

Yes in the past we have seen such "revenge hits as this" and we will again but isnt it nice for once to actually know the reason (favor), we can now put a logical thinking and rational as to why others stepped in. For Many, many years we have seen the kins of those slayed come looking for the "real reason" and mostly they are fobbed off with stories of bush crashes or tales of good or bad for business. Most of this reasoning see through. Now we know that if a case like that this jumps out again, its like this case, they simply were not in favor and their stocks weren't as high as those they killed. There is your transparency right there-the end and underlying objective, because it will always be there.

What that also does is add back some "what if factor". We all have lengthy bloodlines, we all extremely well versed in this world. Almost all of the "what if factor" when deciding to war or a take down has gone. We all know what we can shoot, we all know how well our guns need to be trained to get the job done. This puts it back in; "what if im not in favor" "will this invoke the other leaders to act" You can argue that its always been that way, id agree. But this is something entirely different, this will, in doubt, make everyone think about their actions, in depth, before they take them. Even if its classed as an internal matter. It puts huge emphasis and longevity thinking into play. Which for me, is the main goal here, But most importantly it brings back that "what if factor"- that can only be a good thing for us.  

The problem is that we saw a few of these free city leaders drop during the war, which is a shame really as each city was slowly reaching their limits. However we now see that Philly has only one crew remaining while NY and DT have significantly reduced in size. If things had stayed as they were and as the free cities reached their capacity in terms of the limit of 2 leaders per district, then I'm sure we would have seen people making moves against those they deemed to be unprotected.

As it is we're almost back to square one and now it's a case of building up each city again, if people choose to take the opportunity that is. The idea behind all of this, or at least my perception of it is to create a community that actually interacts, rather than just sits around waiting for that inevitable bullet sandwich one day. It's also to spread around the power, rather than create a super city which herds all members there. A more diverse look for the country is better for everyone, it also means that if a war is to break out we won't see half the population die as not everyone is bundled into one or two cities.

In regards to the free cities, they can be self governed there's nothing stopping that, however the system in place dictates whether an attack on you, will have consequences to it or not. If you're a vocal leader/family then you can expect to be in favour, which will then make others think twice about taking you out. If you don't really offer anything to the community though, then you're fair game if someone decides they want you to take a dirt nap.

In addition, there needs to be people making sure the system is upheld or else I imagine we would be back to killing nobodies and busting out our chums from jail, with nothing in between. There would also be nobody to give consequence to an unsanctioned action such as a mute taking out someone who contributes well to the community.

Progress has become slow on this whole system but it's due to the recent war that we've taken a few steps back. Sadly, things don't always go to plan and if Evolve had been taken out early on I'm sure things would be much different right now and we may have seen change come a lot quicker. On top of that, Gato's attempt at the boroughs also had a great deal of potential and progress was slow, but we saw several incidents which made progress eventually come to a halt and the project retired.

Bottom line is we need to give this more time, hiccups will occur but I feel confident we're going in the right direction.

How would you implement a system where there is no singular power over the country?

That has never been my dream. If I had power over the whole country, I'd undoubtedly put people I knew I could trust into positions of vast power and entrust them with the smooth running of each city but I wouldn't make any secret of the fact that we had a quorum who made decisions on what we felt was best for the country, and our own well-being. I certainly wouldn't be sugar-coating take downs by passing the buck to an anonymous cloak and dagger system, whilst claiming I had implemented an autonomous country-wide civilisation.

This dream was introduced following a nuclear war - something which ravaged almost every man, woman and child in the country. It was intended to encourage growth and prosperity (as far as I'm aware), yet we've seen large scale death and destruction following every single internal struggle (to the best of my knowledge), despite the majority of Detroit being in favour of the removal.

Furthermore, it would be pure folly to suggest that every member of Philly and Detroit contributed less to the community than the late AnomanderRake, yet none of those members were subject to the infamous favour system. The mass mail sent out instructing a combined 5-city attack on any and every member of the two families in Detroit ensured that only a select conscious few would be spared, so how can we sit here and preach about wanting to further the community and encourage growth, when those who were participating were automatically assumed to be an enemy of the state and shot in their bed like a rabid dog?

Like I said though, if you have control of the country, by all means - run it as you deem fit, but lets not hide behind a system claiming it to be an impartial, honest and fair system, when in reality there are 3 men who decide the fate of the entire country. That's the bottom line for me; the decision of who lives and who dies isn't impartial, it's not subject to community driven opinion - it's subjective. It's determined purely on the say-so of the power men. As it always has been.

The thing is, those who currently have power aren't using it for their own betterment, they're using it for the community as a whole and changing things up. You would have power, you'd spread your friends around to control that power, whereas these guys have opened free cities and more recently Gato announced he will step down as a Godfather. Clearly not a power play, nor the work of some tyrannical group hell-bent on making things their way or the highway. You don't make yourself an easier target if you're in this for the power.

As has been mentioned several times, the situation around Detroit was that Evolve needed to die at that time, in order for that to happen his crew needed to go with him, it would be a mistake to keep them alive and in a position to protect him further. Don Oakheart touched upon this already though, he also mentioned his mistake at this widescale killing of those who were wise guy and below. The issue wasn't what the rest of Detroit felt, again this has been touched upon, it was about the level of protection those who removed Anomander had. If Evolve had fell early on, there wouldn't have been the need to remove the rest of the members. Our family wasn't a part of this war but I knew this from the explanation given, I'm sure you are more than capable of figuring that out also.

You're right about the system being decided on by three people, I feel this is an area that needs to be addressed in future as it may be that more people are drafted in for their input on this structure also. The system is far from perfect but if it drives a community to be more active and prompts leaders to have more about themselves then I am all for it. 

It's what we have for now and if it needs adapting at some point I'm sure it will be reviewed and changed but once more, it needs time. 

Screw you for killing the one's that were asleep. You take blame, but didn't allow the ones who slept to assess the situation and see if their Boss was right or wrong, maybe they would have taken the reigns once the boss was removed. People are greedy, if they see they are able to get a promotion they would most likely work with you. Plus it was in your favor to do the attack but you 're so concerned about keeping power you decided to be a prick and wipe everyone who slept off the map. Thank and no thank you, asshole

And within those free cities, the three power men decide who is allowed to take control. How does that really differ from where I would have someone put in place who then encouraged growth within that city? Sure they're basing it on how the leader interacts with the community, but at the end of the day, every Godfather wants to see their city advance. It's the same buddy system that has been in situ since the dawn of time, essentially. It's just being advertised in a more colourful wrapper.

As far as Gato moving to DT from NY not being a power move... well, now the three men have control over 3 cities as opposed to two. Will Don Gato remain as a Don and encourage someone else to rise to Godfather of the city in time? Will he take orders from someone else? I'm skeptical, if I'm being honest, but time will tell I guess.

Sure, I understand the mechanics. I understand and appreciate accepting blame. I just think it needed touched upon when I was making my point. It's admirable to admit you fucked up, but that doesn't change the fact that you did indeed fuck up and a lot of people paid the price for a mail that was sent out encouraging something that was supposedly being discouraged.

I agree with you however, it does need tweaking and I'm not suggesting it gets scrapped entirely; merely discussing the merits and flaws of the system as it currently stands.