The fact that once you're a Halloweener, you're pretty much disliked. Nobody likes them....its more a tolerate them because they're a group a psycho's that just dont die. Mega-corps have tried to eradicate them...still around, Ancients tried the same thing...still around, and now they're off their hate everything corp kick to just hate everything really.
I would think it is more along the lines of how any gang maintains its members. People join for some of the following reasons: They really like the idea of the gang (Go-Gangers would be a big one here), they need to join so that they don't get their butt kicked by the gang (This would likely be a big one for HWs, much like is is IRL), They think they can get power/protection/cheap drugs/cheap thrills/other from the gang (Once again, another big one IRL, some people see gangs as a quick path to power or money or a good way to get a kick out doing 'bad' things and having a gang to fall back on to help against law enforcement or other retaliation).
I figure that the HWs have a fairly strict "Once you're in, you stay in." motto like most gangs do, and those that decide to change their mind are made targets (500 nuyen to whoever brings me bobby's head covered in gas so I can light it on fire. Rest of the body optional.)
Looks like I was right about number 2.
On number 3 I never said anything about R or F on the gear. I just said Availability 20, which works exactly the same way as the normal rules hand availability 12. It makes no difference if it is 12, 12R, or 12F, they are all the same at chargen. So you can use Restricted gear to get a facility or a Beretta or anything you want that has an availability of 20 or lower.
As for number 4, the impression I got was that if we wanted a position of leadership, we needed a criminal SIN or 'Records on file: Renraku', and we got some particular level in the gang that he mentioned. If we don't have that I figure we can pick where we stand, anywhere from right below that to 'Hi guys, I want to be a
@Chrysalis
No worries like I said about the criticism, I was looking for it

I don't really see why astral hazing has to be an express train to NPCdom. I suppose I should point out that her essence is low enough (Don't think I remembered to include this in character sheet) that she would be affecting a 0m radius around her (Or I guess something like half a meter if we are dealing in fractional essence for how far out the aura goes) so it isn't like I can use the aura offensively to go snuff an enemy mage (Unless I give them a nice big hug, but if she is that close, she'll just mince them usually, though it does make for a useful way to capture enemy mages alive). She also can't use the aura to protect allies from enemy mages either, so it really just amounts to a 'Magic? No thank you' ability. I figure that overall the loss of helpful magic is deemed worse than the safety from enemy magic (Thus why it is a disadvantage instead of an advantage) because an enemy mage is only likely to get off a few spells before 'Geek the mage first' kicks in and he is dead, and might not target you anyway, and you maybe would have been protected by counterspelling anyway.
So yeah, like I said last time, it makes you immune to magic, but it also makes you immune to magic. And as long as there is a mage in your party, it seems likely that being immune to helpful magic is likely to come up more often than being immune to enemy magic is.
And while authority figures often fit into the category of whom she is prejudaced against, they don't necessarily. There are many laws that 'make sense' like "not killing" for instance. She wouldn't be particularly mad at a cop for trying to bust her for killing someone. She wouldn't even be mad at a cop who says "You shouldn't kill because it is against the law." because there is some understanding that there is more reason behind the law itself. Now, just because she understands the reason behind the law against killing doesn't mean she will follow the law, but that there are perfectly good reasons for why killing is illegal. "Because it is against the law." is exactly a good argument from her, but this is a case where she 'lets it slide' so to speak, because saying that is like an abridged method of saying all the reasons that go into the law.
I know it is a little hard to explain the prejudice exactly (Which is why it seemed so vague at first, but it is actually fairly specific) and I'm afraid it is one of those 'I know what I mean' sort of things. I suppose you could think of it along the lines of "Would a computer/person without morals accept something as a reasonable argument?". "Because god wills it, because you'll go to hell, because I said so, because it is against the law, etc" would all generally be rejected because there is no reasoning behind it, there is nothing truly backing it up (Except in some cases of law, where the reasoning behind the law itself it sound, such as that you aren't allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded building because people would be injured, but the 'You can't mow your lawn on Sunday' law wouldn't seem to have any sort of good reason backing it up (Exception religion, which isn't accepted) and thus would count as a 'bad reasoning').
I hope I've been able to make what exactly I mean reasonably clear. I did base it on an 'uncommon' group, because while there are a good number of people who would fall into this group, the fact that it isn't something that is physically notable, and thus has to be noticed directly (And likely directed at her) makes it less common.
Another example (I'm hoping if I provide enough people will get an instinctive sort of feel for what I mean, without needing a precise definition). Pete the Priest spends his Sunday afternoons in busy parts of town preaching at random passer-bys, telling them that they must repent and believe in god and not have sex for pleasure and whatever else. Now, if she meats Pete on any day except Sunday, and he doesn't go into trying to tell her she should be doing something or not doing something, they could get along as well as a criminal sadist with slaves and a huge murder list and a priest can. If she walks by him on Sunday while he is preaching a people, she would get the classic 'highly annoyed vein' pulsing on her head, but wouldn't necessarily do anything to him (Unless she was already in a bad mood). But, if Pete decided to single her out and say "You! Yes you! Have you found the light of God? You must go and repent, and ask God for forgiveness for your sins so that you will not go to hell." And it is at that point that she would really have to try very hard to resist the urge to wrap a monowhip around his neck and slowly pull it tighter (Actually killing or not would vary based on reaction, personal mood, and so on).
I suppose the best way to think about it is that she doesn't like having anyone impose their belief on her. If they want to try and make a reasonable argument (You shouldn't do drugs because they will F you up, you shouldn't smoke because it will give you cancer) that is fine. It is when the arguments are along the lines of 'You shouldn't X because I don't think you should.' that she gets really ticked off.