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.

Ehrmantraut I actually enjoy listening to what it is you have to say. its articulate and educated. you dont strike me as the ignorant type, far from it in fact. But even you have to understand that even with a system such as this, a system that allows and encourages freedom of thinking and the freedom of acting that there still has to be a measure of control. The buck will start and stop with someone or some people. or there would be total anarchy and thats not what we want to see right across our land. So you may draw comparisons on old vs new, they will ALWAYS be there, after all what can we really change that hasn't been tried before, apart from a whole ethos change. Even with a dramatic change ergonomics will always supersede, in the end. Thats not to say a change in thinking like this wont work, it can. it just you have to accept that there will always be people who carry the burden of being in power.    

Ehrmantrait, I can assure you they do not decide who controls the free cities the leaders within decide this themselves.

Allow me to play the Devil's advocate for a moment, if I may.

If I decided that I quite fancied being a CL in a free city which happened to be full, and forced my way in by shooting an in-favour CL, are you saying that the power three would sit back and watch? They would allow the internal conflict to be settled internally? Or would they step in and make the decision before it was allowed to be settled internally? That is a genuine question by the way, I'm not trying to be a smart ass here.

So right there they are allowing risk on their own lives and their families where's as you have explained you wouldn't allow if you were in their shoes.

I do believe you have misunderstood me. I would certainly encourage growth, prosperity and expansion in every corner of the country, provided the ambitious amongst us could prove their worth to the leader of their city. I simply said I would prefer to have people I knew I could trust head those cities, and for there to be more transparency following take-downs.

Saying "they weren't in-favour" is a tad unpalatable to me, when you can just call a spade a spade and say "they took out someone I trusted more", "they were mute", "they made a series of mistakes". Whatever the real reason is, not just that they failed to live up to the standards of a code that the power players installed, especially when only those three know the rankings of that code.

Insta, thanks for your input and your very flattering words about my eloquence. I do appreciate there will be a bedding in period, I just hope to see less bloodshed and more transparency and communication, I guess. I realise that's maybe only really possible in an ideal world, but as I have said previously - the current regime have taken a gargantuan step in opening up the streets to discussion and debate. That is something I genuinely do applaud them for. Hopefully the improvements to the streets will carry forward to the rest of our operations because I would adopt a similar sort of system, albeit without the bluster and secrecy.

I've tried to be pretty transparent by giving full insight on the whole incident. If you want, I could make a speech of hours mentioning each and every detail of our workings, but in the end it wouldn't change the story that you already now. Again, there's free insight in how it all works. If someone wants more details, they can ask, like a lot of others have done.

Ehrmantraut, regarding your first question. We would sit back if you had added anything substantial to the community. It all depends on your own protected status. That is no secret knowledge. That is clearly communicated 4 weeks ago. For example, did we intervene when Tellerium and Jezebel decided to remove thecreaper from Philidelphia? No, we didn't. Because the greater community was not at risk. The shown efforts of Tellerium and Jezebel were much more impressive than what thecreaper had been able to show. Please see the following copy of the initial public announcement of the plans.
 

If groups who are protected want to test the strength of their hitsquad, obviously the unprotected groups would be ideal targets. On the other hand unprotected groups want to test their strength as well and so they should. However attacking a protected group will obviously result in the protection forces coming down upon the attackers. Good luck in that case.

When two protected groups attack each other, it is considered a turf-war and only the directly involved groups have to battle it out, without further involvement of the community. Fights over control of an area makes sense and we shouldn't be scared of that happening. Allowing a civil war to happen over it makes no sense at all though.
 

That is quite transparent on how it works. Which leaves the question: How to know who is protected?

That's probably the part where we should be more transparent. Some simply ask us and we answer, because most people are protected in this stage due to solving the housing problem and helping the spread of members across the country. As was communicated in the last crewleader meeting, we'd be communicating plans about the workings of the next phase. That's something Mr. Evolve and Ms. Payne could've waited for instead of deciding to kill one of the people who helped design the plans that gave free opportunities to everyone.


Your latest comment regarding putting people you trust in other cities sounds more like control and absolute power than what is the case in our society right now. I'm not saying that approach is right or wrong. It is however not what we aim do that and that led to an already more diverse country than we saw in recent times.

I also hear your concern about the lack of communication and transparency. While perhaps we could make some more posters to spread around detailing every little part of the community. There is quite some communication in the society at this point. Leaders are invited to bi-weekly meetings were they can freely ask whatever they want. If some don't do that, that's fine. But they shouldn't complain they didn't get the chance to know about stuff. Because there are leaders who simply engaged me on the same topics and concerns that you and others have. And they've gotten answers. After the first crewleader meeting all leaders were encouraged to contribute ideas and present ideas for the flaws in the system. Only a limited amount of people contributed to that. Again, that is no issue - but it does say that much more people than just "those 3 men" are involved.

But regardless of all that. We hear your concern and will work with that. In our initial communication regarding the proposed plans we admitted that this system would not be flawless. We will update it. I think we saw some great things in recent times already and like any of you, I'm saddened we got hit this hard once more. We will improve, and we will include the community on that.