What problem would the change address?
Namely, that numerous (anecdotally the majority) players around the Zuma find their presence as they currently are to have a chilling effect on gameplay in the realms around them. Based on their enormous strength, uncanny unity, and (for many players, but I gather not all) unintelligible objectives, they serve as a kind of "black hole" where all things around them are sucked into whatever they are doing. Simultaneously, because the Zuma are presented as being extremely unified, any time they are inconsistent (or appear to be) it causes major disruptions among players who have assumed consistency from the Zuma. Forming a strategy assuming they will be inconsistent (a "Black Swan" strategy) doesn't get you anywhere, but forming a strategy assuming they will be consistent (most realms around the Zuma until recently) gets you randomly and (at first and to a degree) inexplicably invaded. Usually with enough laborious digging you can find out that it wasn't random and inexplicable, but few players (again, based on my perceptions) find that digging entertaining.
Introducing multiple GMs would not fix the problem of their strength, but would address unity/consistency issues, and, if set up as I suggested, the issue of unintelligible objectives. Namely, having built-in, structured inconsistency (that is, having genuinely different "characters" among the Zuma, who truly do not have perfect knowledge-sharing and do not operate as a perfect team) would allow players to cultivate a more stable playing style. Inconsistency would in fact be built in, but it would be a more manageable inconsistency. In addition, the Zuma being more individualized would form more interesting interactions for players (and, with multiple GMs, be more available to players), and thus would be able to make the exploration of the Zuma more interesting and multi-faceted. Everybody wins (especially the current GM, who would have a reduced workload)
Furthermore, players would no longer have to feel like they were playing against multis and clans quite as much, recruiting GMs would be easier, replacing GMs would be easier, and GMs could have an experience of seeing their actions from the outside on a periodic basis.
From my perspective, those are the major benefits.
The problem that Vellos can't infiltrate the Zuma to instigate a rebellion, play one against another, or otherwise drive wedges into what's canonically a very tight-knit group that trusts each other and doesn't much trust outsiders.
You are really taking this argument personally, aren't you?
It's not even ultimately about playing one against another. It's about the distinction between "Very loyal realm" and "Multi-accounts." Doesn't bother me if I can't play someone against someone else because they're just very loyal. It does bother me when the reason I can't do it is because I'm dealing with multis or clans. No, GMs are not the same, but the frustrations are similar in their nature.
Poll