Zuma Masters don't lie, that is part of why the forgery worked.
.... what is this referencing? I wasn't talking about the forgery. I was talking about a recent message to Garret where I, the player of Hireshmont, phrased the message as a pun on how the Zuma GM phrases messages to others. I did it partly because I want those connected with the Zuma (the Zuma GM and Artemesia) to OOCly start to understand how frustrating it is to work with them, also because I was hoping it would provoke an interesting RP where I could learn about the Zuma (the Zuma GM has opted to respond with RPs where said Zuma Triunists are summarily executed without much explanation; and OOC saying that I'm RPing something that, as I understand it, cannot exist: I apparently didn't play Zumamaster long enough to know that 99% conversion rates aren't high enough to have a couple Zuma monks; I guess you need a perfect 100%?).
In that context I can't see there being huge issues between multiple GM's about what was promised to whom, unless someone wants to break the background for the Zuma. This has always been in my mind one of the biggest problems with multiple GM's. Either they work together so well you'd never even know there was multiples, or you get GM's running off and doing their own thing to the point it is detrimental to the culture.
The Zuma currently work because the GM we have can be relied upon to follow Tom's guidelines to the letter. Very few people are willing to invest what amounts to several hours each and every day to chafe under the restriction this imposes when they have so much BETTER ideas if only we ignore this instruction here, or that piece of background there.
See... I don't buy that. I'm partially curious to know how you know that the Zuma GM has perfectly followed all of Tom's guidelines to the letter. I'm also curious to know how you have such faith that Tom's guidelines are perfect or optimal. Neither of these things seem obvious.
But even aside from that, I have a hard time believing that there is only ever one valid Zuma response to a human action. That is, without knowing Tom's guidelines (maybe he really has created some vast matrix of Action-->Response info), I suspect that any human action has numerous theoretically possible responses within the "rules" for Zuma. Of that set, there is probably another set of responses greater than 1 within those rules that also meet some arbitrary definition of "fun." Of that set, there is probably another set of responses greater than 1 that could be
simultaneously implemented by different daimons that would be "non-contradictory" or at least not oppositional.
Not knowing Tom's guidelines, I can't say this with certainty. But most rules I can imagine would allow for the above to be true. Which reveals the use of more, possibly non-identical, probably cognitively separate daimons (read: another GM, or more than 1 more). Because there may be multiple responses that can be pursued simultaneously by different agents, but which would be harder to pursue in good faith for one person, for any number of reasons.
Poll