Duke - if we are going to get in the habit of copying and pasting all previous AND PRIVATE messages - prepare.
Full details below on the offers for a merger, first sent by me - then responded from Duke.
First message (again sent from M):
Positions for High Command
1) Alliance Leader
2) 2nd and 3rd Officers (Recruiting and ideas regarding alliance "games" to assist in growth and ingame knowledge are the primary responsibilities)
3) Division Leaders (Resources and Growth 1 person, War and Relations the second)
Those 5 members make up the High Command, all with an equal say in Alliance direction. Members of ACRC will be guarenteed to HC (one officer and one division leader, as to avoid one alliance taking full control of the other). Any and all decisions of HC members must be a "fair and honest" majority. This will be defined as 4-1 in votes, because there is an odd number to our HC, to avoid ties - and to avoid one alliance simply out numbering the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response from Duke:
Hi ~M~.
I wrote a big long message then my computer disconnected.
So here is a short return of/for the negotiations. Without my reasons, only terms.
1: Alliance name changes to ((ACRC) Storm Allegiance). (As Written)
2: I (Duke of Asgard) assume role as leader and 1st in command for the first month.
3: On the 30th every month we rotate command.
4:~M~ becomes commander on 30th every other month.
5: ~M~ appoints 3rd commanding officer (Preferably his multi).
6: (ACRC) members will attach (ACRC) Storm Allegiance once I am commanding officer.
Negotiations remain open.
-------------------------------------------------------------
My response:
Subject: Tred Carefully
Message text:
Every member of Storm - including myself - reject that proposal. What you suggested was an alliance take over: giving you 1IC right off the bat, is not going to happen. Appointing my multi as 3IC does nothing. 3IC has no powers, and you would have likely appointed someone from ACRC as your 2nd once I named you first.
You are not in a position to make such an aggressive persuasion of a merger.
I have been playing this game a long time, I have peaceful relations and a history with one of your members (ice maiden, although she looks very MIA). Although I have had a history of \"bullying\" players - all members of Storm Allegiance attached peacefully, appointed me as leader once Ker had RL get in the way of his leadership, I have set up our alliance forum, and begun talks for an Alliance Bank.
I will inform you that discussions of massing all of ACRC have happened amongst us, and obviously no action has been taken yet. But they aren\'t happy with your attempted take over plan.
If you so choose to reply, do know we aren\'t on good terms.
Regards, M
PS - If you, or other members of ACRC, are the reason all of SA got massed by members of D/A Allegiance, I\'ll find out.
THIS IS WHEN DELTA BEGAN MASSING STORM - FOR THE RECORD MCD - The "bullying" hadn't even begun.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
His response:
1:(ACRC) has nothing to do with SA being massed.
2:re iterate your first message to me, you had three points about a merger, (maybe I was confused and it was just me) but it seemed like you suggested a merger with SA but with (ACRC) command. (Go figure this became a point of contention because I obviously got confused).
3:I suggested a merger with the 2 current alliance heads as in command. (ACRC) members will be happier to transfer alliance if they see me as commander (do you get me?) its a power sharing deal to strengthen the diversity and intellectual capabilities of the command.
4:If you have discussed massing (ACRC) I have a problem. that problem is you are negotiating a hostile merger.
5:re iterate that first message to me again and read it yourself and see how I would have viewed it.
6:A merger like that requires that I trust you and you trust me, to promote and strengthen and increase the potential of a successful diverse and intellectual alliance. It requires good communication and cooperation and trust. You don\'t have that, apparently you discussed massing us. I suggested a fairer deal than what I thought you gave. for reasons stated above. I am not going to change alliance just to have original members quit because of me and be head of a different alliance when I am one already!
7:I am going to end now by saying you have taken a hostile and disheartening approach to your own suggestion of merging our alliances. I am not happy with this turn. If you want to change your mind and your approach then call me back, but do not continue with hostile behaviour or you will be blacklisted.
Regards. Duke Of Asgard (ACRC) Commander.
------------------------------------------------------
Although his second lengthy message I have no disdain for, and he raised good points - I have no respect for you, Duke. You are a naive leader as I once was on these matters (and many more, see The Criminal Webs history...
) I have not poked unless provoked, and the messages above deserved a good poking.
