User blog comment:CrimsonAssassin/What Next: The Future of the PM Franchise/@comment-15753613-20150904134321

Maybe we should promote a few people to mod who aren't in this initial group to balance them out, like Tr0llis or someone. And are we doing elections like the last game?

Also a note on mod events. How are you going to ensure that negative events occur for everyone? What happened last game was that you basically had Ms making all the mod events in the beginning, and when there was a bad one about Austria no one batted an eye, and when there was a bad one about Spain it was called bias. Sometimes nations like Spain needed bad events, and when there's only like one person active making events it's hard to dispel accusations of bias.

Also non of these "arcs". I get it if you want to roleplay/be creative/have a part in your upcoming conflict, but you can't cross out every single bad mod event because you want to have an "arc". In PM3 and apparently in one of the AvA games this was used, and it was kind of overused. Scandinavia for example as a union was probably more ASB than Spain's, but being less powerful and such it pretty much went under the radar. Every time Ms made an event about Scandinavia it was crossed out, but it definitely needed a few, and it would have been nice if someone was willing to write them other than the one guy who was bias in the matter. Sorry for the PM3 rant, but this should probably be made aware for the next game. Also there's no use arguing about PM3 issues I know. As one person said for example, "the UNR thing may be ASB but it's way too late now to start regulating plausibility, so let it happen." as in, PM3 was already so far gone, by everyone not just Scandinavia, that it was no use at the end.

And as was said below I think, please ban the "we influence x and now they're our vassal" and the dark grey nations in Europe. It makes no sense to play as say Frankfurt and "colonize" the Palatinate as if it was the New World.