There have been leaders that promote speaking up against them in public. Why did they do this? To show that people could have opposing view points and still have a working relationship with one another. I don't think a leader and every single member they have will always see eye to eye. There are some things that each member values and other things that leaders value and sometimes they are not always the exact same thing. The difference in it failing and it working out for both parties is being able to sit back and try to understand the other point of view. But if you can't speak that point of view then really what is the point?

Do crew leaders do a lot of things? Certainly they do. Yet at the same time who would they lead if no one joined them? Themselves? There is a balance to be maintained and the only way to do so is through a discussion. You may think that this is something that should always be behind closed doors and for some things sure.

However, if there was a great discussion brought up on another corner and a leader got there before their member and started talking. Does that mean if the member has an opposing view point that they should not share it? That would defeat the whole purpose of a discussion would it not?

Personally, I could respect a leader more if they could handle opposing view points. That's just my two cents worth though on the general idea of the factors in a situation.

There have been leaders that promote speaking up against them in public. Why did they do this?

This has long been my stance, tbh you've already covered exactly why that is my stance. You nailed it.

To show that people could have opposing view points and still have a working relationship with one another.

A lot of the time around here people think they need to be a sheep, following behind their leader doing what they think they want them to do and saying what they think they want them to say. Really, for me, I would always ask my members to be true to themselves. Disagree with me as much as you like, even publicly. After all, everyone can have an opinion.

I guess the crux of it then also comes down to trust. I trust that despite situations where my members may not agree with a request, they'll still carry it out as thats my order and I would like to think they trust and respect me enough to follow any such order, even if they don't agree with the reasons behind it.

They are still more than welcome to vent their reasons for why they disagree with the decision, but none the less I expect the order to be carried out. (unless they successfully convince me otherwise, I'm not too proud to admit if I get something wrong and can change my mind without fear of looking stupid).

Conn that can go both ways though. That opens a huge can of worms in regards that we often see people saying that leaders don't have to give reasons. I think the flip side is others not feeling they are owed the explanation either.

I am just guessing though from my perspective. I would personally prefer the explanation as it gives a much better understanding of where someone is coming from. That all being said I can see where it may be perceived as just being a means to cause issues, and it could very well be. It would be hard for me to decide though if I did not know the person myself.

All the leaders out there have worked for it. They are all competent and know what they are doing, they have good understanding of the way this world works and how to manage it.

That's not necessarily true, Conn. All leaders have done things and have had friends that got them into their current positions, but it doesn't say anything about their level of understanding of how this world works and their capabilities to manage it. Let's take the recently fallen Tellurium for example. She had been a leader of Philly for a long time, but looking at the facts presented to us by Godfather Kurgan and Philly's efficiency in war-time I like to wonder whether she really had that well of an understanding of this world. I know this is just from the viewpoint from the recent events and announcements and that other viewpoints are possible. I believe that to a certain extent many people were happy in Philly, so Tellurium had some capabilities in running a city. But apparently they were limited as well.

On the other hand, if we look at the obituaries for the recent war we find that Mr. Kodak died moments before Chicago attacked the city of Philadelphia and we learned that Ms. Tellurium had taken shelter within her HQ surrounded by all her bodyguards. Now it's none of my business, so I won't inquire into that and I realise that sometimes unfortunate things happen. But I could understand that people within Chicago are wondering what went wrong there and whether there is room for improvement in employed tactics and intelligence gathering/spreading - because whatever happened, it wasn't the smoothest start of an operation. Or atleast, from an outside point of view.

It's true that our leaders of this world are often very capable. But it's just as true that mistakes happen at the top. Respectfully engaging with the top on these matters helps us to collectively improve. Admitting you can do better, even at top, is no failure. It's one of the most realistic things to do and if you can find the motivation to actually be better that results in a big win. 

 arrivederci listens to JaryllJicchai and comes up with a thought and question.

It is well known Don Tellurium took in new arrivals and new arrivals were referred to her by the big guns around here. So to assume she was inept does not jive.  

Are you aware all is fair in love and war?  Yes that means good friends.

So nice of you to show up here as well, arrivederci. In what I initially said I already admitted that there were other viewpoints to look at Tellurium's leadership. So what you're saying about Tellurium is not really something that's new to people. I merely used Tellurium as a recent case that a leader doesn't always have the full package together as was suggested by Conn. Being loving, caring and a good teacher is nice and all and let's applaud people for that. That doesn't automatically mean you're effective at running a crime syndicate. But let's not make this into a debate about her abilities as it was just a practical example regarding the topic and it's not the topic itself.

The topic is really about engaging with leaders in public, or in the privacy of the headquarters when that's more appropriate. Now in the last day we've seen you around showing to have an opinion on new auths, disbanding crews, protection orders, secretive elitists holding the power in the country. So far all we've seen are a few half-assed claims and negative remarks regarding recent events.

Upto this point I bet majority is hoping that what your nickname implies actually happens. Personally I think that a few of the topics you mentioned can actually be debated about. I've asked you already to present a properly argumented debate to the public regarding one of your statements. Something like that would give us the chance to debate the viability of your plans or we'd be able to confirm or debunk some of your statements. The longer you'll avoid the open invitation to present your cases well, the more people will realise you're just the next disgruntled person that rather complains about life than to improve upon it.

You're whole identity really sits in the middle of what this originally aims to discuss. It would be good for participating associates to speak up and come with plans to improve on this place. But so far you just prove to be the kind that should stop wasting their breath and our time with all the shortsighted negativity.