After a recent meeting between some of the more influential figures within this thing of ours, it has been decided that firmer rules will govern the movement of friends of ours and associates among families. From now on, associates will have the option to move to other crews. Button men, anyone of the rank made man or higher that have sworn an oath to their family, must remain in their current families until either they or their leader falls. It is a blood oath after all. The only exceptions to this being if you are given auth to start your own organisation or given permission to join a family as a Right or Left Hand. At the point of yours or your leaders death you are no longer bound by the oath you took.

These won't be new rules for many, they have been a part of many family rules over the years. They are simply now being rolled out on a broader scale and will be expected to be the case for every family from now on. Gone are the days where new leaders will be requesting button men to join them for nothing more than shits and giggles. That's not how oaths work.

As an associate of a crew you're not bound to any particular family, you are after all, just an associate and due to this you can be free to ply your trade in other crews no matter where they are situated.

However this does come at a cost and it's at each crew leaders discretion.

If a crew leader has ensured that little Joey the Goomba has been well looked after, has been given a sum of money to get his foot in the door on the drugs market and has also been tutored by some of the more experienced members of the crew, then we may see that crew leader charge an amount that reflects the amount of effort they have put in.

On the flip side to this we may find that some leaders don't particularly care if people want to try their hand in another organisation, after all, do you really want someone in your crew that doesn't particularly want to work for you? We might see these associates leave for peanuts.

Leaders may decide to have their own policies in place for this, some mentioned recently a set amount per rank but ultimately it is down to each leader what sort of compensation they want.

To dumb this down completely this is how it works.

Person X is in Crew A

Person X wants to leave to join Crew B

Person X approaches Crew B asking for an invitation to join that organisation, Crew B sends the invite (In the event that Crew B does not want the associate, then Person X can not leave until he has found another crew to work under)

Person X approaches Crew A's leader and explains he wishes to work for Crew B and has received an invitation

Crew A's leader then asks for a sum of money to compensate (The amount is up to Crew A's leader)

Person X coughs up the money and then Crew A's leader drops Person X from their crew

Person X joins Crew B

We all live happily ever after.

There are a lot of questions that can come with this new rule and I'll try to be preemptive in addressing these before my mail box is flooded with lots of enquiries.

What if my leader is charging me an unrealistic amount of money?

It is at each leaders discretion what they charge you, however if we find that someone is charging Gangsters $20,000,000 to leave their crew, you can be sure that this leader is likely to find themselves out of favour. I would expect the amounts to reflect the amount of work a crew has put into that individual.

What if my leader shoots me when I ask to leave them?

Again, this is something that will likely see people fall out of favour over, we're putting this in place to deter this kind of behaviour and this will hopefully see a decrease in the suicide rates.

What if my member only wants to leave because I won't give them their button?

If you have concerns around this, you should contact the leader of Crew B. You might also consider contacting your city head in the event that Crew B does promote Person X once they join or very soon afterwards. We can't fully monitor what standards each leader puts in place for their members to receive their buttons, but if we feel that leaders are slacking in this area, we will address it.

What if the member has joined lots of crews already?

If someone is known to hop between many crews then that's up to them, however they might find themselves undesirable due to the amount of times they have switched crews, it will also take them a longer time to build up trust in their new family and they'll also be out of pocket by a considerable amount due to having to pay out multiple times.

Why the change?

As an associate, you're not bound to any family in particular so this is a step in the right direction for everyone I feel. We hope that with time, we will see more of a focus on the rank of Made Man and what it takes to become one as well as highlighting that there is a vast difference between being an associate and a fully fledged member of a family. We'll hopefully also see people happier with their crews and able to find a place to settle and eventually become a part of a family. Too often we look to death to be the only way out, moving forward we feel this should only apply to those who have earned their bones.

Just a quick bit of arse licking. It is wonderful to see this world return to a certain standard. For too long have things been allowed to slip and it be accepted as if it is the norm. The current crop of leaders, as well as the new blood in the world, are working incredibly hard to reward those who work with them, follow the unwritten laws we have neglected for so long and fighting to right the wrongs of previous regimes. Now, allow me to swallow that sick and get on with it.

Can I ask yourself Fitz, and those in the know, why the bond of a Made Man is broken upon their leaders death? Was that discussed and agreed upon?

It's just, as you know, I come from the military. The British Army. I had to follow some right hoorah henrys into battle. I didn't like them, I didn't respect them but they were my superior. So I followed. But I fought for the people around me. My Brothers. When the officer died, and he always died, I picked up those colours and I marched forward to victory. Those colours don't run. You do not go backwards, you fight for the oath to the King and you get shit done. Now, what we have in this world is different. With the freedom of movement now allowing you to find a place you like you have no excuse.

I think that it should be discussed whether a Made Man oath is for life.

You chose this leader. They chose you. You were marked as a trusted man. You took the oath. There is no way out of that. The enemy of your leader is an enemy of yours. You should stand with the other trusted men and fight for everything you swore to protect. That is the way it should be. The Right hand, then the Left hand followed by all ranks cascading down should stand up and fight side by side.

In the case of your leader dying by being weak and taking the easy way out or Mr. Durden shooting them then the same should happen. This world should recognise the Right Hand as the natural successor of the deceased. If they don't then the previously mentioned fight to the death will occur. One side will always win. If people are willing to give these people families they must accept their judgements of their trusted me.

I do not believe there should be a way out for any Made Man. You take the oath then you accept the deal. That would truly see a meaning return to the rank of Made Man

Joe listened with interested to the man replying to the Godfather and decided he would throw in his own two cents. Turning the the gentleman he nodded respectfully before speaking. 

"I tend to agree with you, however, I don't think that this policy changes that. In the event of a war I think it is up to the victorious family to decide if they want to allow anyone who has earned their button within the defeated family to live and then those individuals will have to make a decision as to if they feel it is honorable to surrender and live or if they should fight to the death. I don't think that is something that can be legislated, it is a decision that each man or woman must make for themselves." 

Getting a thoughtful look on his face Joe lit a cigar and took a couple of puffs before continuing. 

"Now, as for the right hand of a leader taking over in the event of the head of the family dying at their own hand or the hand of that despicable pile of rubbish Tyler Durden I think that if they are a good leader who has earned the respect of the other crews they are likely to get the nod - however, if they are not by not having it be an inherent thing I think we avoid unnecessary bloodshed. This life of ours is a violent one and it is one that we have all accepted, however, I don't think there is any need to cause more violence when not necessary. And, in the event that a right hand decides they do deserve to take over a crew with the passing of the leader without the consent of the cities leadership then they can surely try and see who follows them - but in that case I think that it is fair to allow the members of the crew to decide if they wish to follow that person or not; after all, the man or woman they swore an oath to was the leader, not their hands."

Wandering up, he listens in before giving a rub of the old chin; his bristles making a scratching noise against his calloused fingers.

"If a Oath is broken with a leaders death, does this suddenly mean we should expect smaller more tactile attacks at only those known loyal to a family in a take down/war and not just anyone along for the ride? possibly demeaning the rank, the person who gave the rank and the person themselves for not going down with a ship?"

"Secondly, If a particular family or few families makes moves to try and whore these associates over for their own benefit, will we see punishments under the favor system as such?"

Pausing thoughtfully he looked on

Hearing another gentleman bring up a good point Joe decided to respond once again. 

"I guess my view on this is that the oath has always technically been broken upon the death of the leader because the leader is the one the oath is made too - those who made the oath, however, see it as a matter of duty and honor to go down fighting with their family - and I don't see that changing with this proclamation."

Joe took a hip flask from his side and took a sip before offering it to the gentleman he was responding to as he continued. 

"Further, I don't think the leaders of our world would look too kindly on anyone who didn't continue to fight for their leaders in any but the most extreme of circumstances - I can't actually think of one but I'm sure they exist. I imagine that if I were a leader and I saw a city taken out and suddenly saw someone who was a made man or higher come slinking out from the ashes and looking for a home I would be more likely to put a bullet in their head than accept them into my family - not because they were an oath breaker but because they were without honor."

"That might seem like a fine distinction but I think it is an important one - the oath may be to the leader but your honor lies within your family and your willingness to stand with them. Really this only become an important distinction in the event of a leader retiring or dying outside of a war - in which case I think those who had made an oath to the leader should be free to leave with honor and try to find a new place to continue to grow - however, in that case it does become an important point."

The oath that is sworn is sworn to the family. That family dies with the leader. The oath is considered broken because it has to be Richard_Sharpe.

In the army it's a clear line of succession as your noble empire tends to endure... for now at least. That isn't always going to be the case here on these shores of ours. Any other blanket rule wouldn't be workable or sustainable in every situation, so the blanket rule has to be that the bond is broken. 

In the vast majority of situations, the expectations on a member will go far beyond a blanket rule laid down for all. If a leader has put in place contingency plans, if there's a Godfather acting over the members who puts in place an alternative, then there will obviously be expectations on that member that go far above and beyond this statement and are linked to the specific circumstances.

What will happen if those expectations aren't met? That's for those leaders to decide. It simply wouldn't be possible to put together a blanket rule of this nature that can cover every possible possibility beyond the expectations laid out already. No flow chart could ever even begin to outline all the politics and interdependencies that happen during wars in this thing of ours. I'd imagine we'll all feel relatively safe knowing some of the decisions are still in the hands of the leadership of our fine cities.

You could very well see that Bitanga, but I certainly wouldn't expect to see it. I'd expect this will have little impact on most of us, as many have lived by these rules for years. It's second nature to a majority of our world. My bond to my leader will be broken if my leader were to fall, but do you think that would shake my loyalty to my family? I don't imagine for a second we're going to see any great increase in disloyalty or decrease in loyalty from this announcement. It's just carving a few things in stone that had always been in the heads of many for a long time.

If families are whoring associate's with existing ties to families I wouldn't expect to see any issues under the favor system. I'd expect to see serious issues full stop. It's the type of action you could see to a leader's death, whether in an open city or not. Putting down firm rules like this doesn't release leaders from good taste or intelligent decisions. Those things are still very much required.

This world should recognise the Right Hand as the natural successor of the deceased.

I am just going to comment on this at the moment. I disagree with this statement entirely. The Right Hand is usually someone the crew leader trusts. Sometimes who the crew leader trusts and who the members of their family trust can differ. I can understand the crewleader wants someone they specifically trust with access to their mails and other such stuff. I do not think every person should be automatically forced into a family headed by someone they may not have chosen themselves. When you join a leader, you are choosing them. Not necessarily choosing their hands depending on how you chose the leader in the first place. 

BlackJack listens in to the discussion and waits a moment to speak:

"All in all I feel as this is just formalising a general practise. I am glad to be it rolled out as a rule rather than a practise however. My main concern is that is some CL's move to attempt to poach members. That being said, I am sure that if this activity takes place the crew leader in question would fall out of favour."

BlackJack places a fresh cigarette in his mouth and lights it up, anticipating further conversation.

In relation to the point raised about Made members slinking off after wars. It happens practically all the time. If you're lucky and survive a few takedowns you can have 3 or 4 families. I think that is something that shouldn't be happening.

Shantelle I think you are wrong. A Right hand is an extension of the man himself. He has been chosen by the leader so that should something unfortunate happen he is there to run the family in his absence. You mention about trust. If you cannot trust the decision of your leader that the right hand is the best man for the job then surely you do not trust your leader at all? You chose your leader to follow every decision they made. Not to pick and choose which ones you enjoy, surely?

TsuDhoNimh there is a blanket rule here in my eyes. But my world is very black and white. I do not look at intricacies. Every single person in bold has the blessing of a Godfather. They have all been authorised in some form. They should surely be in a position where their hands are the accepted natural successor to their family? That is not hard to put in place? If they do not want the job they should not be RH in the first place.

Should the Godfather not want their RH to be placed in that position then he can remove them. But I think it would show that maybe they authorised the wrong person if they cannot trust the person with nearly as much power as the leader themselves. Now, if the RH and the LH were to fall I would imagine then something of a shit storm is occurring. That is where a Godfather earns their crust. That is where they must help the district survive by hook or crook.

I think it would relatively simple rule. Anyone over the rank of Made Man should either fall in line behind their leaders natural successor or await the inevitable swim. The Godfather could still be a major player in ensuring it is a smooth transition and ensuring the members are kept safe. As I say. Beyond the RH and LH then the Godfather must place someone to oversee the transition of the family to safer waters. That would be expected in such circumstances but I still believe it should come from within the family itself.

It may be bloody, it may see a rise in deaths but you cannot take this oath twice. Its an oath to the family. Only the the leader of the family can release you from it with their blessing to go elsewhere.

There are simply too many occasions where that wouldn't work. Be it due to the logistics, the desires or the personalities of those involved. The way our world works means that someone doesn't even need to be a button man to hold the position of right hand under certain circumstances, so trying to build anything upon those shaky foundations is questionable at best. There are simply too many outliers.

In the cases where it is practical, I'd fully expect to see it. In the cases where it's not, I'd expect those leaders to make suitable decisions to guide their extended families to safety and protection. I'd consider it very short sighted to see our leadership making blanket rules that simply can't actually be applied in every circumstance. You'd have to have a fierce big head to think you could apply your will in impossible situations.

Sometimes a big head is the only way forward my friend.

The debate of whether a none Made member can be a Right Hand has been had too many times to mention. But this would tie that loose end up nicely. If you believe there to be too many variables then so be it. I thinky the variables, with a traditional way of thinking, are easily addressed. But maybe it's my longing for the days of my ancestors diaries to return that see me refuse to move with the times and look to lock certain things in place. The world is obviously a very different place but it doesn't mean we can return the honour of being Made to a level beyond of what it is now

"Richard, while I can see your point about succession and process in the military, you have to accept that we aren't the military. As much as we do go to war and have battlefield actions, the governing dynamic of all our practices will always be business. As such, the business interests of the victorious party will always dictate the post war ruling. Even in so far as who lives, dies and is crucified in the aftermath. 

There may well be noble-hearted loyalists that wish to take up the banner for their fallen family and fight on. No-one would deny anyone that right. I defy anyone not to respect someone making that stand. If they want to fight and die, more power to them. But there are many variables in war. Just as with military wars, you have all kinds of ties, connections, assets, spies and all manner of other things to consider. Not all will want to fight on, not all will have been what they seemed before and some may have very strong ties to other families. These are all things that the attacking force has the privilege of deciding as the dust settles.  

This ruling isn't so much about war though, more a reminder of daily peace-time practice. As has been stated here, it isn't really news. Its been more or less common practice for generations. This is simply a formal stamp to remove any confusion. 

The freedom of reasonable movement is allowed with Crew Leader's discretion. The movement of Made Members is severely restricted, requiring special circumstances to be permitted. Simple as that."

But my world is very black and white. I do not look at intricacies.

I think that's pretty much the "agree to disagree" endpoint of the discussion right there. Some people see the world in black and white. Most of us argue that life isn't so simple and see a world full of grey nuances. Some people see everything through the lens of the colors of their country's flag. Other people simply worry about green. We all have a unique perspective of our world. 

I have a great deal of respect for your conviction, Richard_Sharpe - but I don't think most people share your idealism. Most men and woman swear an oath to a leader, resulting in most loyalties not extending beyond the individual. An oath to king and country is so much larger, because there will always be a king (or a queen) and there will always be a country.

Perhaps this is fertile ground for a street speech by you, as you try to persuade others why your view of the world is more correct- I seem to have strayed from the original topic- but I do think that too many people are more focused on living for themselves than dying for a cause. Criminals don't make the best idealists, although there are, obviously, some exceptions.

Richard_Sharpe, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. In many cases the right hand is someone that the crew leader themselves is close to. It doesn't always mean its the best person, the hardest working person, etc.  Sometimes it is just their best friend that they couldn't be parted with.

On the flip side, there are right hands that do work hard. That may have the leadership skills to run a family. If they set up then surely the members would join them anyways right? At the end of the day it is a call that people have to make for themselves. 

I think that's pretty much the "agree to disagree" endpoint of the discussion right there.

Richard_Sharpe, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.  

Man, it's good to be right all the time. 

Man, it's good to be right all the time.

I disagree with agreeing to disagree. Agreed? 

Gabriel Listen's to the GodFather FitzChivalry giving this announcement on the streets and nod's his approval. He also listen's to the others speaking with views connected to this subject, agreeing with some and piquing his interest on other views.

"I would like to thank the Godfathers for agreeing to make this announcement and setting this as a rule for all to adhere to. My personal view has always been that whilst they are still and Associate they should be free to go elsewhere, as long as they have discussed with myself of my hands why they feel this is not there Family. There is always a lot of reasons that this could be the case. Maybe they are new to these shores and although they thought they knew what kind of family they were getting it to, but once some time has passed and they have got there heads around the whole show, they suddenly realise that they would be better in a different type of Family. Or maybe they just clash with others and the atmosphere in the Family is strained. There can be many reasons"

"I also have opinions on some of the other topics that have come about regarding this announcement, but I will hold of my thoughts as I think on them. I'm pretty sure a separate discussion may well pop up sometime regarding these very issues"

"Thank you for listening"

CS had been listening to the whole discussion about made men and oaths, yet she decided it was better to comment on some of the other more relevant stuff. Afterall, it seemed the topic was more or less closed.

"It had always been my impression that associates could leave and join as many families as they liked. However, I have heard stories from my grandmother about discussions on whether there should be a specific amount of times for them to move. This seems like a better deal though.

Depending on the reason for their movement, I think you should consider how this person came into your family and how many times he or she has moved around in the past. If this person has been moving around more often than I change my socks, I would most likely send my regards to his new crewleader if he did not know that already. 

But yes, I think it sounds fair all in all. As long as the compensation is equal to or less than how much the crew has put in this member, I do not see anything wrong with this."

CS wandered off again, nomming on some of her cookies as she dipped them in milk...

Roxie stands by and listens to everyone speak.  She had read about this topic in the journals left by her ancestors and comes to the same conclusion as they did.

Rules should be established to be enforced.  Rules established by the Commission for lack of a better word should reflect our Code of Conduct in the community.  Although I accept and abide by all rules I feel family matters should be left in the hands of the Crew Leader.  My ancestors have stated this many times before in the journals I have secured.   Since when does another family handle internal matters within another family?  Associates should take pride in earning their buttons and not allowed to sit in the Headquarters making no initiative to become a friend of ours.  There may be a number of circumstances as to why the Boss wouldn’t let an associate just leave.  Five million to an associate that hasn’t done jack shit might be an overwhelming amount of money to leave a family.  Do you actual think a person like yourself FitzChivalry would find yourself out of favour if a associate ran to another family complaining.  Do you actually think someone would tell you how to run your family?  Do you actually think a Crew Leader has to divulge to anyone his/hers decision making? Do you think an associate has the right to ask another family to question it?  I would answer NO to all the above.  If you have no control over enforcing the rule the rule has no merit.

This rule may make sense to many but it’s not enforceable.

There may be a number of circumstances as to why the Boss wouldn’t let an associate just leave. Five million to an associate that hasn’t done jack shit might be an overwhelming amount of money to leave a family. - If the associate hadn't done jack shit I imagine the price set for leaving would be significantly less than $5million. In many cases I wouldn't be shocked to see associates, who approach their leaders with honesty, openness and a willingness to do what's needed to ensure all is right, left leave for a token payment or none at all. We have leaders, those leaders will lead. This is just setting a framework for certain things to work within. One which the vast majority were already operating on.

Do you actual think a person like yourself FitzChivalry would find yourself out of favour if a associate ran to another family complaining. - No 

Do you actually think someone would tell you how to run your family? - Yes. If there was someone ahead of him on the pecking order. Luckily, for him, sitting at Godfather he's pretty much clear of that issue so won't have to worry about it.   

Do you actually think a Crew Leader has to divulge to anyone his/hers decision making? - No. There's no requirement here to divulge anything. The only way information will be known is by watching the outcomes of it. Each leader and their decisions will be viewed in that context. This isn't anything new or strange. I'm not sure why it's even worthy of note.

A leader doesn't have to explain how or why they decide to remove members of their family, but you can be damn sure they're being watched for it and judged on it. This will operate in the exact same manner. 

Do you think an associate has the right to ask another family to question it? - Let's be honest here, an associate wouldn't have the right to do jack shit. If information gets passed around it will be peers and higher ranking members of this thing of ours that will be asking the questions. It's not the associates making the rules, it's the button men and those that oversee the associates in our fine cities.

I would answer NO to all the above. - I'd seek to extend my vocabulary and form some varied opinions. One word answers can be very dull at times. That said, you'd totally have nailed a few of them.

If you have no control over enforcing the rule the rule has no merit. - This is the bit that confuses me?!?! How did we get from all those random queries to this conclusion? I'm seeing some logical fallacies and some fairly epic leaps of faith to reach this point.

Our leaders have more than enough control to enforce this rule. Sure, there might be the odd occasion where one might slip through the cracks, however unlikely, but that doesn't mean the rule won't be enforced. I'd love to give a detailed rebuttal of this, but I honestly can't even see where it's coming from to try and refute it. It's just wrong.

If you mean that our Godfathers won't know of each and every case? Sure. That could happen. In the same way, they might not know of every attack being planned or the shooter of every shot at a member. That doesn't make a rule unenforceable and without merit. It makes the odd transgressor get away with it the very odd time. It makes an idiot lucky until they finally manage to trip themselves up at the next hurdle.

That's the only thing I can imagine you mean with it. If it's something else, please do let me know. I'd genuinely love to hear it.