Tim, I have a question for you: do you think there are any problems with how the Zuma have been implemented, and how the game experience involving them has played out? Because the impression I'm getting (that normally I would discount because I have a lot of respect for you, but your attacks on me are making me curious) is that you think they're a flawless and genius addition to BM, and anyone who disagrees is just dumb.
Yes, I certainly do. I've discussed some of these with the Zuma GM.
Here's some public ones:
I think that Vates was handled extremely poorly as an extension of the Zuma. Too little coordination, and then inactivity without real warning.
I think that the forged letter could have been handled better. I agree with the principle that for the Zuma to try to do something (or even threaten to do something) against a particular realm, it should take action by that realm. Not necessarily public, official action, but some action by the realm or someone with some credible claim to represent it.
I think Tom should have communicated better to the dev team about what the Zuma needed so that we could ensure that the code would support it better.
As part of that, I think that humans should have been far more selectively allowed to join the Zuma Coalition, so as to avoid debacles like (IIRC) Valentine's attempted secession of Nightmarch. (I think that's what happened, anyway.) If we had not had things like that happen, it might not have been necessary to bar all further humans from joining the Zuma.
I think that
if more GMs could be found who were known to be active
and fully willing to coordinate solidly with the existing GM, that would help to ensure that a) the existing GM was not so badly swamped with the required replies and actions, and b) people who interact with the Zuma will, on average, receive better replies faster. (Note that I do not say anything in here about variety: I've never opposed extra GMs, I just don't think they'll solve the problems people have with the Zuma.)
Poll