If you have inconsistency now, and you would have inconsistency then, and a GM forum is used to provide continuity, then are you really gaining anything? If it is done properly, the players shouldn't even know that there was a swap. So, what are you gaining? A rotation that, if done properly, would be invisible to the players. And a growing number of players who know the secrets of the Zuma. Leading to a growing number of players for whom the whole Zuma enigma is... not an enigma. Personally, I'm not seeing a single positive from a "rotating GM" scheme for the Zuma. Not a single one.
You misunderstand me.
I'm not saying someone else should play Haktoo.
I'm saying there should be truly OTHER daimons. As in, inconsistencies of belief, knowledge, and behavior between, say, Screamer, Swift Claw, and Haktoo, are obviously contrived. Messages sent by Haktoo and Swift Claw seem to indicate the GM either repeatedly sends messages/messengers to himself every turn (the current hypothesis Terran's nobles are using), or that the daimons are a hive mind. They all seem to know everything about each others' interactions.
That is, the only justification for inconsistencies is that the GM messed up. We get that happens, obviously.
But I'm suggesting we should hardwire managed inconsistency. We don't have players share Haktoo. We set some kind of timer on Haktoo (either a fixed one or manipulable, hardly matters) with an RP explanation. At the end of it, maybe Haktoo falls asleep. Or maybe Haktoo just is weakened. Or maybe Haktoo goes back into the Netherworld, or whatever. Then, maybe Goobergaboogablag is the new daimon overlord. The GMs coordinate OOCly some for general consistency but, ultimately, are understood by
all players and characters to be justifiably and intentionally inconsistent: by design.
You can "overlap" their terms if you want. I prefer the idea of having 3 GMs, 2 active at any time. I can write a more detailed schedule if you want, as well as various ideas for RP explanations.
The advantages gained are:
1. The GMs are freed up: they don't
have to be so rigorously consistent, because their divergent and possibly disagreeing personalities are
by design. They should agree on "reality," of course, but can have different objectives based on RPs... and not merely in the sense that the current GM may have contrived objectives for each daimon.
2. GMs get a break. They can stop and get an outside perspective for a while; see what it's like to not have all the current information. If their downtime was, say, a year, this could, I think, have a very beneficial effect on GMing.
3. If a GM wants to permanently stop, finding a replacement (and how to fit them in) is comparatively easy, and does not destroy the whole framework.
If you want more benefits, I can continue. But those three seem big to me, and would remove a great deal of the feeling many players have of being toyed with by an overpowered GM. If Tom established a rule, however, stating that all GMs must be in lockstep agreement on all things, and that all IC conflict between their characters was forbidden, it wouldn't achieve very much. But nobody has yet explained to me why such a thing should be the case.