No need for deep philosophy there, but I'll try to make some.

Sure, if an associate mafiosi follows all the rules, and is unhappy of his opportunities at one place, wants to resettle somewhere else just to gain some more experience, or know some more people in life, I don't see the problem. He /she should be left free to do so against a minor compensation. But some couples are made for swinging some others not... What about the situation when couples become more mature? Betrayal? A stab in the back?

IMO, All the serious problems come at some points in our lifes when associates become unhappy Consigliere or Don, and don't agree with the decisions of theirs leader. Uppers, like mine above, would say you eliminate the problem at it's source with one or two bullets... Some time later they die and say to themselves "Damn I could have survived if I could keep that wo/man with me satisfied".

I am sure the problem is not to let the associates free to circulate, the problem lies down much deeper. What do you recommend to do when you have problems with your most ranked and valuable crew members?

like mine above, would say you eliminate the problem at it's source with one or two bullets...

To clarify something, I meant in the deep past of my line, not the actual leaders. I don't know what their position is on that matter...

Why are associates the main topic here of change? An associate is exactly what associate means. If they opt to join a family they are stuck like chuck.  They leave in a casket.  The change that is really in order is ignored.  Did it ever occur to anyone here that associates are the money makers?  Associates can perform far more many hours then many of the LH or RH do. And a proven great leaders as well.

 A change is in order alright but not with associates being able to transfer.  Besides a transfer is known to the public eye and watched by all. How about some of you in high positions get over yourselves and step aside and allow the city to flourish.

You mean like what happened in Pasadena recently, Hillary?

I keep hearing Brexus is in the house DotBoom.  Are you in touch with Great Britain?  I guess I can answer yes and no to your question.

I can answer yes and no to your question, Hillary. But I would vote Trump if I was in touch with USA only, without Bre(tain) tough, lol.

With the rise of the Thule society in our time, it may be that a need exists to create one similar but different, not to go into the OOC or Outside topics...

Hillary, an associate is a person with limited or subordinate membership of an organization. At least that is the dictionary definition. With regards to the Mafia, they are not members of this thing of ours, they have not taken their vows, they are not privy to the secret workings of the family. As such they should not be bound to the same laws and promises made by button men. I'm not denigrating associates by saying this, simply espousing a fact of life. Their status or rank within our organisations has no bearing on their ability to work or earn or contribute, as indeed you have said, some are far more successful and wealthy than many mademen and capos I know. As they have not taken the same vows as those within the organisation, they should not be held accountable to the same punishments.

Which brings me to my good colleague DotBoom. Alas we do find from time to time that a high ranking member of an organisation falls out of favour, or changes their opinion on the leader they joined in youth. The only recourse available are diplomacy and violence. As a Capo, or Boss or dare i say it a consigliere, you should have the trust of your leader, if they are doing their job correctly. this opens up a line of communication that you can explore, voicing your concerns in private. If your leader is genuinely at fault, they may be thankful that the errors of their ways have been pointed out by a close and trusted ally. They may not, and you may find yourself even further ostracised. This leaves only violence. If you have truly reached an impasse, then one of you must die. Either you suicide and leave, hoping your offspring will have a better life elsewhere, or you take out your leader and assume control of his organisation yourself. This in of itself will bring about new challenges. Will the other families recognise your authority? Will your former leaders friends and members simply let you take control? This is how it has worked in the past, the great Al Capone himself seized power in this way. However, it is not something I or my ancestors have ever witnessed.

It's really good to witness how an example for change created this debate. It gets attention here in public, but it also reaches the rooms of those who lead the crime families in America. It's excellent proof that a lot of opinion exists and that it's good to give voice to that. With this attitude topics like these are being considered for change. We're in a make-able society and it's debates like these that are the fuel for moving forward together.

Personally I'm not against associates moving to another crew. Once a relationship within a family really doesn't work out, it poses the question whether it's even wise to keep someone in the family. It feels strange to come to the conclusion that a relation doesn't work, that you do stay together and assume that it won't negatively affect the two parties working together. In the end each situation is somewhat unique and I think it needs to be treated as such. But I'm all for an attitude where we seek the best for our associates, who are the future of our society, even if it means leaders don't directly benefit from it.

However these situations should be uncommon I hope. A leader should realise that associates play a vital role in any operation and that it's worth to invest in the relationship with these associates. That also means discovering whether you are a good match in the recruitment process. Sometimes it's simply wiser to not have an associate join an operation, if the mutual expectations don't match at all.
On the other hand, associates should also understand that picking a family is not like picking a cookie from a jar. You don't just discard a family if it's not to your liking. An associate is valuable, but not the king. Apparently this, or the recently debated topic of 'shipjumping' are relevant topics that touch with the experience of a lot of people in our community. That makes it an obvious thing to discuss, but to me it seems the result of a different problem: The incapability of recent leadership to instil loyalty, to build relations with more than just a handful of friends. The question that would personally interest me most is not whether we should allow people to move between crews, regardless of the circumstances. But as a leader I would be wondering what I can do to prevent that situation from even occurring.

I'd like to invite HillaryClinton to clarify a bit on her statement regarding the people in high positions. Hillary, could you explain who needs to get over themselves? And please elaborate on how them being gone would change things for the better. That is really what this topic here today is about: Explain what needs to be changed, instead of complaining that nothing does. Let's identify solutions instead of problems.

I have a couple of problem with this whole idea and that is an Associate strives to become a made member in whatever organisation he or she represents, they are expected therefore to show certain qualities and one of the most important qualities required to earn your button is loyalty, if everyone starts flipping crews every five minutes there is no trust or loyalty there, another thing to take into account would be Omerta, whats to say people wont just go around crew hopping to dig for information or to check out the inside of ones headquarters?.

If a person transfers over to after already being in say two or three crews how could you possibly trust this person, whats to say that person wouldn't up and leave a day later?.

When a person arrives on our shores fresh off the boat from the mother land they have ample time to check out perspective crews before making any decisions on where to go, do they not?, also in certain circumstances people are allowed to transfer to other crews provided the two crewleaders agree to it we see it happen all the time.

However I do see how something like this could be implemented if done in a structured and organised way for example if a person joins a crew you could give them a window of say two or three days in which time if they find that they are not happy where they are they could move provided they informed their crewleader first, they would only be allowed to move crew once and if they haven't moved within the first two or three days the window closes and they stay with whoever they joined.

Lancelot, my old friend, I have already explained the whole idea of information mining. There is an easy solution, given that you can now mark HQ notices as for Mademen only. Also, if someone were intent on gathering information on your crew or family, simply joining and then passing that information onto a friend or their next of kin would suffice, if you made it commonly available.

I believe you have also answered your own question regarding Loyalty. I agree, if someone is bouncing from crew to crew like a jerboa, then they will never earn that button, they will never prove that loyalty. I personally believe that once someone attains the rank of Wiseguy, they should at that point be prevented from 'jumping ship'. The reason being is that Wiseguy is the rank when you should be looking to make your mark. When you should be looking for someone to join, a family to dedicate your life too. If in 8 days you haven't found somewhere you are happy, then I would hazard a guess that you never will be happy, and perhaps a life of crime is not for you.

I've not had time to listen to many of the others taking part in this discussion, so I hope I'm not repeating any concerns that have already been raised. Forgive me if I do.

While I like the idea of associates transferring between crews I think we need to take this step carefully if it is to happen. Wise Guy's can be highly underrated in this day and age and we often see Wise Guys running around with just as much skill as Bosses and Consigliere's and while they are still considered an associate I feel that they are too dangerous to be allowed to run around so freely between crews while being so skilled.

It is often the way that people will initially decline their button because they feel safer honing their skills while keeping a low key. With this system in place if a war is to commence and there is such a wise guy within the family, it is possible that they may then transfer to another crew, wait for things to die down and then seek revenge on the enemies. I feel this would benefit nobody and although it may seem a little extreme I can imagine during war time a lot of associates looking to make a move out of a family, particularly if they are losing. If that is the case, do we need to look at putting some policies in place around this as those leaving may do so in order to avoid being shot, however later on they may return to the initial crew in order to offer protection to their bosses. 

I think we should look to enforce a no recruitment policy during war times if this were to come into effect. Alternatively a removal of all guns for those who do change between crews in order to deter any such behaviour that I have listed.

Another concern and one that has more potential to do harm is that sometimes a crew leader doesn't feel his member has done enough to warrant his button, in the event that a Wise Guy becomes upset with his situation he may threaten to leave if he isn't given his promotion. I would hope that any leader with any sense wouldn't give in to such demands, alas I do feel there are probably some around that would. For those leaders that stick to their guns and their member does leave, they may join someone who then promotes them straight away. Every leader has different standards set for their members in regards to what it means to be a Made Man and what that rank is worth to them and I feel this system is something that could cheapen this rank further if we're not careful.

Due to this I'd advise if this system is put in place that we look to implement only those of Earner and below may transfer into different crews. This would also then eliminate some of them problems in my first concern and seems to be a fairer way of going about things. Surely, 7 days is enough time to find an organisation that you're comfortable with?

After listening to the views shared in this current topic of debate, Raoh stands up and offers his own personal view.

This is a great topic Dusty and something which I feel is handled very differently dependant on which family you make your home. Now, each leader is entitled to their own opinion and stands by those decisions based on their beliefs. I will share mine now but in no way, shape or form am I degrading the views of others.

For me, the role of Mademan and above shows a life long commitment to your family. This is one of the most trusted honours a leader can bestow onto their members to reward their loyalty and hard work. So, once this rank is achieved, they should be in for life, I don't think anyone would debate this. Of course, there are exceptions, based on new and interesting opportunites which may become available should the circumstances fit.

In regards to Wise guy and below though, I personally feel that people should be given the opportunity to leave, providing a reasonable reason is given and the leader offered the opportunity to discuss this since they have provided protection for that individual whilst they were given the chance to find they feet in this world of ours. To prevent 'yo-yoing' though, I would advise any individual that wanted to leave that should they wish to return to my family then they would be in for life from that point, regardless of whether they were Mademan or not. I do not want to retain people against their will as it wouldn't benefit either party. I would be able to recruit someone in their place and they would be given that chance to seek their new family.

Should they find that they made a mistake and actually liked the operation that we have running here, then they could return on the understanding that they are in for life.

Thank you for clearing that up a bit for me Ms. Lane.  I think there may be some miscommunication as I am not advocating for Made Men to be able to move around. I agree that once they take an oath then that is it. However, some associates are not told to look around when a sponsor or leader approaches them. Some automatically jump at the opportunity to be sheltered and later on regret it. So no, not everyone is aware of the time they have to check into leaders or even know that they could have discussions with multiple people prior to  joining. I am hoping that this would help those people.

If people do happen to take the opportunity (this is assuming that this change idea goes through) then it could take them longer to earn their bones as they will not have necessarily been in that crew from the start.

Are there any changes you would like to suggest for our community as well?

Dusty left the question hang there as she turned to Juan_Ramirez.

Always lovely to see you Mr. Ramirez. You always make some solid points in our discussions with each other.  While you are here is there anything you feel this community could use some changing in besides this one thing?

Dusty once more turns her attention to another speaker.

Welcome DotBoom to the discussion. In response to your question I would certainly hope that by the point someone reaches the esteemed ranks of Consigliere and Don that they have worked out a way to communicate with their leader. There should always be open and honest communication with the leader and if there isn't and a problem arises perhaps its because of this.

So my recommendation would be that a leader is sure of their member before they promote them. Sure that there is a clear and concise communication and that the member is aware of the vision the leader has and wants to create for their family. If both are in line with this then surely when upset it would not result in drastic measures that someone would want to leave?

Catching something out of the corner of her eye she realizes someone else is standing close by so Dusty moves in closer. Hearing what HillaryClinton is saying she speaks up.

I am not particularly sure what leaders having to get over themselves has to do with anything. Perhaps you could offer us some insight into the changes you would like to see in our community and why.  I would be interested in hearing some solutions to the problems you see.

Recognizing her boss Dusty couldn't help but grin. This was a man she could discuss ideas with until the cows came home and she was always interested in any insights he could provide from the way he saw things.

Thank you for adding to the discussion at hand RobOakheart. Would you have some advice for leaders looking to work on their ability to instill loyalty among their members? I am sure there are ways most of wish to improve so it would only seem natural there are some that may feel they need to improve in this particular area.

I would hope that associates would feel more comfortable in taking more time to look around before accepting invites so that they could be sure but the reality is, some may not know. I hate to see people hopping from crew to crew but I am hoping that those who accepted the first invite that was sent their way and then regretted it could have an option to rectify the mistake and find somewhere they could be more comfortable and productive. Perhaps this would even open up a spot for someone who wanted to be in that family but could not until that point.

Dusty turned her attention once more to Lancelot.

I understand your issues and most have been addressed so I will not rehash what others have said.

In regards to trusting an associate, I believe ChristianGato also pointed out that the swapping could harm the associates reputation. That would be an acceptable consequence of movement. This could mean it would take that person longer to earn their Made status, and it should.  I think that if associates wish to move they should be told about this beforehand so they can make a decision with all the facts.

I appreciate your input on how to structure the idea, thank you.

Dusty smiled over at FitzChivalry as she listened.

I agree that there should be some sort of time limit in regards to switching. Whether it be when they sign the rules they have committed or a certain number of days, either way I am in total agreement that those who have remained at Wise Guy for some time or get angry about being in that spot without promotion should not be able to just jump around. Those things could easily be communicated with the leader. This is by no means, or should not be, an out to communication. In fact I feel communication must be worked on prior to even considering a transfer.

Spotting another face that was unknown to her she looked over at Philly's newest auth. Still smiling as she listened to his opinions and thoughts.

Thank you Raoh for coming out here. Your views do make sense and I appreciate you sharing them. A lot of my reply would be on things I have already touched upon so no point beating a dead horse. Made men should be in your family for life though unless given the opportunity to take on a bold suit or hand position.

"The incapability of recent leadership to instil loyalty, to build relations with more than just a handful of friends. The question that would personally interest me most is not whether we should allow people to move between crews, regardless of the circumstances. But as a leader I would be wondering what I can do to prevent that situation from even occurring. "

My exact thoughts.  Recent leadership and hands is old news. It is quite the bore. When they speak we can see who their kin was in this world. They could at least be more creative.

The allotted to pick a crew is not nearly enough beings most job boards remain closed.  

I apologize for taking so long to return, other matters have kept me away to be honest.

I do believe this will become a more contentious issue as more crews arise and recruits become harder to find.  I also believe if someone is in a crew for a few days and isn't allowed to leave most won't care about losing a few days work and suicide out.

I think how the approach is done is part of the key to this, as an ex-member of mine left with a move engineered behind my back between them and the leader before taking a shot at someone after moving crew.  Although i am glad it never happened at my crew, still makes me wonder on the loyalty issue of some even after transfers.

The questions is if a universal system was put in place how are some crewleaders going to look at 10 kills a day fred, 500k donations a day bill or their favourite guy specs with his street smarts leaving too? how many different conditions are people going to want to attach to people who can or can't move?

Personally, i worry about potential mistrust from the situation; as Insta mentioned eight days wise guy as a possible transfer point, how much will a person know of an organisation and it's inner workings by then also earners, if the persons training a gun other shooters, structure,  etc? i must admit among some it may raise an eye brow.
 

You have raised some good points Karen.  It also looks like HillaryClinton's raised tax plan had her body guards haul ass.

Personally, i worry about potential mistrust from the situation; as Insta mentioned eight days wise guy as a possible transfer point, how much will a person know of an organisation and it's inner workings by then also earners, if the persons training a gun other shooters, structure,  etc? i must admit among some it may raise an eye brow

Karen thats the only really down side, for the lack of a better word. As i dont really see it as a blocking point. mostly because we have the ability to hide what we put into our HQ's. It would be a safe assurance that anything of that nature would or should be reserved for those eyes of your made men. Anything of that sensitive nature should be only privy to those who are fully fledged members of your organisation. Its not too far fetched to say that most crew HQ's are very generic in their approach to what they put inside the walls. For example, Rules and hierarchy etc. all very samey. So there wouldn't be too much in the way of exposed information about anyone one organisation. 

If you break it down, they have 8 days to choose between three chosen crews, should they so wish to do so. Thats just around 2.5 days per crew. Id again pose the question of what an associate could actually learn from your organisation, the inner workings of one anyway. As a Crew Leader, it will add a new dynamic to how you manage your HQ and that can only be a good thing. These associates will come to you announced so you can make preparations within your HQ to allow for them to look round without finding out too much of the inner workings. 

The questions is if a universal system was put in place how are some crewleaders going to look at 10 kills a day fred, 500k donations a day bill or their favourite guy specs with his street smarts leaving too? how many different conditions are people going to want to attach to people who can or can't move?

For me this isnt a matter of a loss in a hitter or a potential loss in earnings, its more about retention and engagement. You know you might have 6 associates that are not happy where they are, you'll still not get any of things listed out of them anyway. Its counter productive. You dont need to set too many restrictions, just a few basic ones and fill the rest with common sense.  

While I like the idea of associates transferring between crews I think we need to take this step carefully if it is to happen. Wise Guy's can be highly underrated in this day and age and we often see Wise Guys running around with just as much skill as Bosses and Consigliere's and while they are still considered an associate I feel that they are too dangerous to be allowed to run around so freely between crews while being so skilled.

FitzChivalry you're correct, wiseguys can become a good enough associate by age to make a bit of an impact with their gun but i think thats why the 8 day time frame works well. while 8 days is a decent length of time in world, its not going to give them enough to make a huge dent. like a i said, around 2.5 days per crew if they choose to exercise their right to swap to 3 crews. realistically, they will not have any access to our list of local bums that need to be put out of their misery etc. And lets face it, if a wise guy of 8 days wants to do something, im pretty sure they will do it regardless of swapping between three crews in 8 days. 

I think we should look to enforce a no recruitment policy during war times if this were to come into effect. Alternatively a removal of all guns for those who do change between crews in order to deter any such behaviour that I have listed.

This should almost a certainty. It makes a great deal of sense. 

Yes sadly is why i have previously said we can't people as prisoners in our homes, it only leads to discontent.   Is just seeing from the speech both sides of the coin sadly.  As for certain info, well we know how it goes when you have to reply to fred, bill or joe as hitsquad leader etc is somethings that don't get hidden so well.

One of the other things me and i believe a RH noticed was a problem with recruitment in general, potential associates with mails with no known contact to leaders unless via outside means.  A few of these targets of course went ia anyway, but is that really how little effort earns an invite in some cases show up maybe do a few jobs and and invites waiting? 

Karen and insta I have heard you both. You both raise some really good points.

I am curious if perhaps with the associates thing we could actually work on our recruitment process so the chances of associates wanting to leave would be far less and the likelihood that they fall into comas could hopefully be avoided? Associates transferring and recruitment I find do go hand in hand. If the associates have the information to make an informed decision on who they would like to join then that would be more likely to keeping them then to seeing them leave, right?