A pretty straight forward question that might not have an easy answer;  

Where do we draw the line?

Recently in our Crew Leader meeting we spoke at length surrounding people have an irrational fear of speaking in the streets because they dont feel they can express how they want, without fear of dying. We all agreed that it was unfounded and that nobody has died because of what they have spoken about out here and we recognized that we should push for people to challenge and to put us to task and that there hasn't been an age for a very long time that has been as free thinking as we are now. We understand that we have to allow ourselves to be questioned and i will go out on a limb and say that every Crew leader has a sincere approach to allow this to happen. 

A question that was asked in that meeting was how do we determine what is considered as constructive criticism and what or how far do we let people go before it gets to a point where we, the leaders of our world have to step in. The issue is that we cant and simply dont want to set a base standard of what respect is and/or how far a person can go. That would not be the correct process, going forward. Also, i suppose disrespect is subjective to that person, what might feel disrespectful to me, might not be the same level of disrespect to another person. So the next question would be;

How do we draw the Line?

We are trying to show and allow the wider community to understand that they can question and that they can put us to task. Recently we seen a member of ours really test this logic. He pushed his view points quite hard and practically called out the vast majority of the Crew Leaders here. This person now lies 6 feet under (ive no clue the issues surrounding his death) Looking at how he held himself, do you think that would have been considered just too far, or do you think that he did pass the line. Personally i think he had some very valid points but it was his delivery of those points that would have had my back up. Thats the whole point for me though, you can absolutely push those boundaries and bend that line, god knows ive done it but surely it has to be done with tact, no?  

If you put yourselves into a Crew Leaders shoes, would you accept this type of behavior? Is this a direction that you would like to see us heading towards? I noticed that a few Crew Leaders come out to defend and represent themselves,do you think that this is the correct thing to do? Or does it only add more fuel to the fire?

I think for me, most of the times, if we nurture a persons ability out here then we can mold people into the right way of questioning people and put those in charge to task. What about implementing a three strike rule instead of instantly picking up your gun? Give people the chance to step away from a heated debate and sit them down and talk them through it, with a first strike and coach them through the correct etiquette.

We are, as a collective of leaders, have made a commitment to be more lenient when it comes to these issues but "IF" it does start to get abused, how long do you think its something that we are willing to facilitate those behaviors and should we accept it? 

"I may have stepped away from that discussion for a moment to kick that twat's ass, but upon returning I watched the event unfold. I saw some arguing off to the side, and it seemed quite heated. I saw some questions raised from non leaders, directed at leaders, and I saw some of those leaders address these individuals directly and with as much venom."

"I think the individuals that started the arguing, if you'd call it that, could have been dealt with more swiftly. Not necessarily by force, but where was their direct leader? Or someone in their family, giving them a quiet reminder to chill out? I can appreciate in this line of work there will be friction, yet I feel matters dragged on too long for my taste and I had to walk away early as it seemed a little too personal and off topic from the discussion itself." 

"How long should an argument spur, before someone takes action? And why did it kick on so long, given many would say there was a definite level of disrespect shown toward the leaders way before anything solid was done about it. Disrespect is disrespect, and it shouldn't be tolerated, even if that means a family member pulling another by the collar away from the argument before it starts to affect others also at that gathering, and inturn ending the way it did."

"We aren't in our positions by playing nice and by other peoples rules. The government and authorities can't handle us, so we must handle ourselves. There is always a line, what I would like to know is who should draw the line, one's own family or someone else, and why wasn't it sorted sooner? And lastly, should our leaders be allowed to kick up as much of a stir in response, or do they have a responsibility to be a better example?"

Hi Axel, Thank you for listening and coming out here. I have seen you at a few of my gatherings now and i just want to say that i appreciate your input, so keep it up. 

"I think the individuals that started the arguing, if you'd call it that, could have been dealt with more swiftly. Not necessarily by force, but where was their direct leader? Or someone in their family, giving them a quiet reminder to chill out? I can appreciate in this line of work there will be friction, yet I feel matters dragged on too long for my taste and I had to walk away early as it seemed a little too personal and off topic from the discussion itself." 

This is a tough one for me and probably for every other crew leader. The problem with this is if you micro manage every situation like that can we really push for this open kind of way of living.  Its hard because the minute we jump in, for a scenario like this, do we, the Crew Leaders, then get accused of not allowing people to express the way they feel they can. Is it a counter productive action? I mean that specific incident, personally i would have allowed him to have his say but would have monitored it closely and would have maybe offered a specific way he could have gotten his point across without the continued disrespect he showed. 

...And lastly, should our leaders be allowed to kick up as much of a stir in response, or do they have a responsibility to be a better example?"

I think this question is situational, sometimes a reply simply isnt needed but if a Crew Leader feels the need to come and defend himself or his Crew member the he has every right to do so.  Yes we should absolutely expect a Crew Leader to hold themselves well but like i said earlier, its an emotive subject, isn't it?

"Well you seem to always have something juicy going on, it's never simply bumping gums. Wise words Space-pole, I'll defer to your better judgement. Not because I feel I should or need to, but because you make sense and you've answered all my questions. Always keen on seeing what you have cooking, I'll kick about a bit."

"I believe fully, Axel, that some individuals who claim they're fearful and don't want to speak up because of said fear.. as well as others who simply want to be rebels actually go too far in the streets intentionally. I think if people were truly afraid to speak in the streets because they're worried it will stop them from being promoted into a family, or they'll get "stomp"ed for it, or even shot, then they simply wouldn't get into a debate on any topic.

Instead what we find are very heated and public arguments with people, usually with one person forgetting their manners whilst speaking because they're so uncontrollably passionate about the topic of discussion that people end up being forcefully given swimming lessons. I don't even doubt in cases it's just so the next of kin can come along be even ruder, and claim "see this is why we should all be fearful of public speaking"

" there was a definite level of disrespect shown toward the leaders way before anything solid was done about it. "

"You're right. The leaders, even if annoyed or angry about comments and delivery tend to give unwritten, undocumented warnings to mobsters in their own mind. In fact, people commented on both sides, for the crew leaders and the non leaders, that their way of communicating can be considered disrespectful and/or antagonising."

"The issue is that we cant and simply dont want to set a base standard of what respect is "

 I personally think a good rule of thumb is, if you were questioning your granny and your mum would give you a clip around the ear 'ole for the way you're talking, you shouldn't expect no difference.

If you're questioning a boss the same way a spotty hormonal teenager would whinge and complain about their parents at their parents for being so unfair, and hating them, and threatening to run away forever! then, you should laugh at them. If their own crew leader wants to take action, that's their decision... however if that crew leader DOESN'T want to take action because freedom of speech is or paramount importance to them, even if their member is calling another crew leaders mom a word that rhyme with 'unt' but starts with a C, then that crew leader should never expect any level of respect shown to them in return, surely?"

" even if that means a family member pulling another by the collar away from the argument before it starts to affect others "

"That's a great point. Usually, during these overly heated debates people involved tend to be simple associates. I don't recall any times in recent history where a made member of a family was set up to be WACK!ed by their own boss for their level of disrespect to people in the streets. However, when these made members sponsor associates and then those associates run their mouth off flinging out intentionally disrespectful sentiments, it kind of looks bad for the family. Any made member of any family should know whilst you're given a certain amount of leeway to be a little cheekier, that doesn't extend to their underlings.

I think any made mobster should use their authority within their family to step in and calm an associate of their own family when it starts to look like action might be taken soon if it continues. "

A nodding head could be seen as Axel listened intently to Bender. The Vegas newcomer found himself at a loss for words again, due to the answers being given. Wise words, insight given based on experience; Axel felt he was amongst intellectuals more than criminals, which seemed a good thing given his background and desire to understand more about this lifestyle. Sarah's killer still needed to be found, yet right now Axel  found himself impressed with the figures around him in Las Vegas, the city of sin, and felt more and more comfortable following their lead and being out here.

Axel addressed Bender directly in response.

"More insight I didn't expect. I did ask the questions though, so I'm not sure why I'm surprised with the responses. Thank you also for answering my concerns. I owe you and Space-pole both a drink at some point."

This is a very interesting and valid point you bring up here Space-pole and one I touched upon a month or so ago when we had someone deliberately trying to cause issues but trying to do so in a veiled manner just for shits and giggles, I raised the question then about where the line is and how clear was the said line.

SisterMaryJane hit the nail on the head for me when she said " If you can't say it to your own boss, mother, or grandmother then you should probably NOT say it", and I personally would echoe those words.

If you can't say something in a respectful manner then you either need to work on your language skills, or at least run what you want to say past your own crewleader or Godfather before speaking in the streets, as Space has already pointed out if someone wants to question a crew leader, or for that matter anyone else in whatever upper structure then they should feel they are able to do so as long as it is done in the right way, we will always have differences of opinions that is human nature, nobody is expected to all skip down the road holding hands whilst whistling happy tunes.

However if I were to come out to the streets and call one of my superiors a cunt I would be foolish not to expect any repurcussions from it, but if I had a genuine grievance I feel comfortable in being able to come to the streets and voice my opinion, that is of course if I wasn't able to approach whoever behind closed doors first, I'm not a fan of laundering ones undies in public but sometimes it is the only way, in which case I would choose my words wisely.

So where is the line? clearly it is not a visible material line for all to see but more a moral one, if you want to come out here and just disrespect someone and abuse them then really you cannot grumble about any punishment laid down.

Having said that if someone starts shouting abuse and disrespect just over a difference of opinion that is different, if you can't handle people questioning you or disagreeing with you, THAT IS NOT DISRESPECT! that's just you being a pussy, in which case the streets probably isn't the place for you.

As for fear of coming out to the streets I don't see any nor do I expect to see any, no one has been killed for voicing their opinion for a very long time in fact quite the opposite people are encouraged to speak in the streets.

In majority of the cases it’s pretty clear when a line of decency and respect is crossed. Assuming any member is subject to their family rules which probably still have these paragraphs about honour and respect - a fair punishment should be handed out for any violation. It should be fairly easy to decide whether a newer face made a misstep or an experienced mobster pushed it too far and adjust a sentence accordingly. I wouldn’t opt for a strike-system as that would overcomplicate things in my opinion.

Emotional speeches on relevant matters are often the difficult ones to judge. People should really prevent to get this emotional on the topic as it often distracts from the original, and possibly valid, point that was made. In the heat verbal mistakes and false statements are made on which defending orators jump in and easily undermine the credibility of a person who presented an initial argument. A possibly interesting discussion goes off-topic, tensions rise and in the end there’s no winner.

People who bring hot items to the streets shouldn’t allow themselves to get into a shouting contest with the aim of being publicly announced as “right”. The same goes for defenders. The silent crowd is not stupid and the truth will buzz through the minds of the community anyway. For example, if some associate would claim ‘TylerDurden is a ruthless maniac, that cares for nothing but his own benefit and runs a poor operation with mainly unskilled mutes’, that is likely to get a defending response from the Durden operation, as it should. Now say Tyler, Marla and Robert join the stage with their high respectful ranks and made claims how well they do, how the associate doesn’t know what happens behind closed doors and how an associate shouldn’t question their approach - the associate would be wise to just leave it at that. The claim has been made and all bystanders would recognize the truth of that which has been said initially. Adding heat to the debate, making mistakes or repeating arguments doesn’t get anyone any further.

This is just a very obvious example, where the truth is very easily spotted. The real cases we encounter are often more difficult to judge, but the same principal applies. Bringing tactful truth is key and it will do it’s work slowly. Doing more than that is probably drawing attention away from the main topic and is counter-productive. Of course people should continue to discuss if a mature progression of the debate is possible. 

I realise that is not so much an answer to your question Space-pole, but rather an advice for people which might prevent the need to determine the line of disrespect at all. A thing I do like to say is that I hope for Men of Honour and leaders to not pull the rank-difference card on an associate who makes a respectful claim. Even though it’s true that a high-ranked person is not required to explain anything to an associate outside of their operation - if the person being questioned is truly confident about their approach it should be easy enough to defend against possible accusations with facts and insights. Countering someone on-topic and invalidating a claim seems more worthwhile than using rank difference or Omerta to skip past the topic at hand. To me, using the context of this place feels like a weak attempt to prevent debating what is actually being discussed.

But bottomline, speakers who go kamikaze with disrespect in their speeches should simply be disciplined for that, regardless whether their claims hold truth or not. It might get the message across, but it should be punished either way, because breaking rules is simply not allowed.

A question that was asked in that meeting was how do we determine what is considered as constructive criticism and what or how far do we let people go before it gets to a point where we, the leaders of our world have to step in. The issue is that we cant and simply dont want to set a base standard of what respect is and/or how far a person can go. That would not be the correct process, going forward. Also, i suppose disrespect is subjective to that person, what might feel disrespectful to me, might not be the same level of disrespect to another person. So the next question would be;

How do we draw the Line?

Recently we seen a member of ours really test this logic. He pushed his view points quite hard and practically called out the vast majority of the Crew Leaders here. This person now lies 6 feet under (ive no clue the issues surrounding his death) Looking at how he held himself, do you think that would have been considered just too far, or do you think that he did pass the line. Personally i think he had some very valid points but it was his delivery of those points that would have had my back up.  

Space-pole, I think this is a great question- but an almost impossible one to answer, due to the subjectivity you mentioned. I think there are two possible ways that this could happen, in my opinion.

Option 1 is to try to actually create and publish a policy that tries to determine precisely what the line is and why it cannot be crossed. Specify what people cannot do. This, however, seems pretty impossible to me, both because of the incredible variety of potential transgressions and the fact that people would all have to agree to abide by this objective standard- even as we already acknowledged that people feel differently. Even if we DID all agree to a set of guidelines, whether or not something broke a particular rule would be debated. I might try to take a crack at this later if I'm feeling ambitious, but this seems like a nearly impossible task.

Option 2, I think, is much more likely: we establish a line not through proclamation, but through practical application. Over time, people tend to test boundaries, like the person you mentioned earlier. It appears that this person had left his family at the time of his death and was essentially operating independently; I would assume that that was the reason for their death.

I believe that what we need more of are consistent examples of people offering their insights- even challenging ones that a leader wouldn't enjoy hearing, assuming they're backed up by the truth-  and then not getting killed. Ideally, these people would be lauded if they perform this task with respect and skill. So if we see more people doing this in the streets and not getting punished, that will encourage more participation. When someone does eventually cross a line and is called out for disrespect, then the community would note that as well. Every discussion would therefore continue to clarify "the line".

The three strike rule sounds great in theory, but I just think it's impossible to quantify this sort of thing. Will people deliberately abuse their first two strikes? And are there no differences between a minor offense and a major one if it's simply just one strike? If we do ever implement guidelines, I doubt there will be many numerical factors involved. 

It's all down to being a case by case basis really. There are no standards that we can put into place whereby each person who steps out here must adhere to them. So in terms of a line, there really isn't one, it's more of a squiggle. 

I've heard a lot of people talk about respect being earned and not given recently. Now while that is all well and good, you must realise that dependant on the power a particular person holds is dependant on how ruthless they can be while out here really. I mean, I wouldn't advise it by any means but if people who held power came out here and started bad mouthing everyone, there's very little the smaller people could do about it, so despite this whole good karma of "you be nice to me and I'll be nice to you" thing, it doesn't really have to go down like that. In reality there will be no immediate consequence for a powerful leader to come out and do that sort of thing. However, when the tables are turned then little Timmy the Thug is much more likely to see a Double Bullet Burrito once he turns Gangster for talking shit.

So bear in mind that the current group of leaders are, as Spacey said, willing to be quite lenient but in truth they don't need to be and as has also been mentioned, I'm sure if this is something that were abused then it might be reviewed. Thus far I've not seen anything majorly terrible, people will disagree and others may flirt with the invisible squiggle but for the most part everyone seems to be ok. In fact I'd go so far as to say most street discussions seem to be quite productive with very little squabbling or bickering, which is always a good sign.

Jaryll, you make some good points but more often than not we will see people put their life on the line for the sake of being right and having a sense of pride, sometimes people just can't accept that they may be in the wrong and as you say, they will invest into the discussion in an emotional way. It's usually these times we will see deaths as a result of disrespect, as people can't let go and end up committing themselves to saying something they shouldn't have. It's not necessarily wrong for them to do it, they have an opinion, they feel strongly about it, so strongly that they're willing to go to their grave with it, which they probably realise will happen.

Fitz shrugs

I won't begrudge anyone for standing their ground, it's difficult to admit you're wrong sometimes but when that emotion comes into play, then that can become dangerous for the speaker.

I pretty much agree with what FitzChivalry has said most folks know where the line is and most will pull up short of that line. If we where to talk about the late Mr Explosion he knew where the line was and kept at it he knew what was coming and hence left the crew he was in. These things will always happen we will get the Bitter Brads and Angry Angelas who will rant till they are killed or suicide.

As for what is deemed disrespectful that i think is what each leader feels is disrespectful what i think may very well differ from what Fitz thinks which will differ from what Slash thinks and so on and so forth there is no certain formula. 

Now this is where folk get grumpy should a wise guy or under have more or as much of a voice as a made guy or over? Which i will add then makes rank meaning less if you disagree. As rank and status are everything in this way of life.

Everybody has its red-line for tolerance. As Boss Space-pole said it, it's subjective, most of the time. In my humble opinion pardoning and giving another chance to those you don't know having a constantly provocative attitude, inherited by blood, is not a sign of weakness, on the contrary it's a sign of strength. Now, if some people want to make some jokes and pranks to others, they should know who they address them too, if they aim is not just to spend a few days in our world...

I do remember someone from my line, just having been made had menaced a Don, few days away from being GF, for not paying back money stolen from him. Of course the menace was a joke, and even if that ancestor could do some serious damage being less than two weeks old, I consider it should have been taken as a joke. The thing is he was shot for that joke by his CL, not even being asked to, but maybe just becoz' of CL's fear of being erased if not doing so... Now that's what I would call "pussy attitude"...

Sure, a straight bullet disciplines well, but there should be some value to life, too.

Veronia has agreed with majority of what everyone has stated on the limit to that line and how its sometimes not very easy to tell when that point is. To where we draw the line? That is always going to be an ambiguous one.. For what i see as long as you are not being disrespectful and courteous to everyone and not pointing verbal bullets and repeated disrespecting directly at CLs or above i think that  you should come out fine.. 

As far as Whom and how quickly the line is drawn? Well Depends case by case wise.. but one thing i can say.. If You're disrespecting a CL.. whether its in your city or Not  you may want to curb your tongue.. i want open discussions as much as the next person does. But Asit was said if you can't say it to your mother, granma without getting either killed or slapped.. same should go for in chatting here in our streets. I myself personally want to see more persuasive discussions and hope that both communication and as some call it "forgiveness" on rude things that may be said in a heated moment to be taken in venting concerns moreso then a direct confrontation.