General PMF Application Process - Out of Date Info - Lack of Communication -- Stonewalling. "Not My Department" - Help/Discussion

[Archangel2153]

Hello,

IF any CMDRS or F-DEVS could provide more insight into my issue, it would be greatly appreciated.

I am looking to get more insight into the current process regarding PMF applications as in the past few weeks I've had a significant amount of difficulty getting sufficient information from a member of the customer support team.

I submitted a PMF application within the Posted Guidelines for PMF applications.

as seen here

Only to be told by the Agent on the support team who is in charge of denying or accepting PMF applications that the rules regarding PMFs have changed. They say the rules have changed two years ago; and are restrictive to a high degree.

When I question why the rules haven't been updated to reflect the admission changes they only said

"The information on the forums and website is out of date, I'd like to get it updated however the decision lies with other departments."

which is pretty much saying "sorry that's not my department."

The agent also tried telling me that PMFs within Elite Dangerous are not designed to represent any player groups. PMF applications are merely meant to be a fun extra naming activity for CMDRS and the names must strictly be within ELITE lore, subject to further scrutiny, must not be made to be of much importance within elite, and can't in any way reference other IPS.

For the first part there about PMFs not being meant to represent player groups --- of which I represent over 100 CMDRS and on their behalf I have been trying to get actual communication out of this FDEV agent to little or no success.---

I am having difficulties getting a clear picture of what the actual truth is, as it seems to be the Agents words completely contradict the posted guidelines, how fellow CMDRs view the purpose of PMFs, and what is already in the game. I also do not understand how if these "NEW RULES" are of such strict importance, why FDEV hasn't quickly updated their FAQS page despite the rules being over two years old.

The Agent argues that PMFs are not designed to represent player groups.

The agent also argues that Naming rules are STRICTLY elite related.

Despite the posted rules seemingly being much more lenient.

After some discussion with other CMDRS across various discord servers I understand the possibility that referencing other IP could land FDEV in legal issues.

But if that is the case why are old PMFs and New ones treated differently if old PMFs are often verbatim copies of other IP <- Imgur Link.

also if that is the case why would similar names also be rejected, by referencing other material without directly copying the name. Much in the way comedy or satire references IP without attracting any defamation lawsuits.

Regrettably, my Player Group is a reference in itself - a rather direct one-- to another Devs IP. I also still am with the majority of CMDRS I've spoken with who view PMFs as an extension of their squadrons and player groups through which they can represent themselves within the ELITE BGS system and expand their agenda throughout the bubble.

The agent pretty much told me to give up the entire process. But I still have my fellow CMDRS to represent, who have been looking forward to their own PMF for months now.

I struggle to agree with the agents view as to the purpose of PMFs. I also struggle to accept that the posted rules are not even the rules.

Out of Respect to the agent who I was in contact with, I cropped out their names out of the attached images and will not directly name them.

My goal with this post is to at the very least have an in depth understanding as to:

• • Why the FAQS don't reflect the "rules".
  • also why the FAQS would not have been updated in over two years to reflect the changes.
  • Why the rules changed.
  • Why the new rules Don't affect in game PMFs.
  • Why Admission requirements come across as so inconsistent.
  • Whether FDEV agrees (as well as fellow CMDRS) with the agent regarding the purpose of PMFs.
  • Legal ramifications of IP references for player created Factions/Groups Which prohibit FDEV from accepting IP refs.
  • Why the current system for PMF applications doesn't follow posted rules, but rather FDEV agent opinion, knowledge of IP refs - in which I would imagine some subtle refs would get through.
  • What Actual guidelines are beyond "No Refs to anything".
  • Regarding my player groups Theme, what name I could have that would still reference my group, while also retaining some of our identity to the PMF.
  • If PMFs are not meant to represent Player Groups, despite the FAQs page, CMDR understanding on PMFs, and the fact they are called PLAYER MINOR FACTIONS.
  • What would even be the point of a PMF????

I represent over 100 CMDRS, and I would like our PMF to represent us. Or at least to better understand why that isn't what they are for.

I would also like to understand the rule changes in more depth.

If other CMDRs could offer their input or experience with the PMF application Process.

and if Any F-DEVS could provide insight the agent was either unable or unwilling to provide.

It would be much appreciated.

I love Elite Dangerous. I love the community I was able to build around it. I also would love for us to have our fair representation within the game. I know it would conflict with Elite Lore but so do many current PMFs already in Elite. I want to believe that player satisfaction is more important than protecting an already flawed lore system within the game.

It would mean the absolute world to all of us to succeed in this PMF process; and I fear now any further applications would be subject to unfair bias, or an overreach of the unposted rules.

If the posted rules are not even the rules, how can I still navigate to a successful PMF for my group?

 

[FrogsFriend]

It looks very simple to me. They've clearly stated (repeatedly) that you can't have a faction created with the 'other IP' name you've submitted, and that's not going to change. Choose a different name?

 

[DemiserofD]

It's best to think of it as a dnd dungeon master. Ultimately, the rules are guidelines meant to guide you towards a good gameplay experience. But if you are abusing the letter of the rules in violation of their spirit, they have every right to reject your requests, letter of the rules be darned.

Follow the spirit of the game, and most problems will magically vanish.

 

[Northpin]

Debating rules with the people creating and enforcing the rules is going to end well
This is not a democracy, their turf, their rules.

how can I still navigate to a successful PMF for my group?

Weird, but somehow lots and lots of other cmdrs registering a PMF managed to do it without dramas

 

[Rainbro]

I was expecting this to be about the myriad other problems I've heard from people trying to submit PMFs. Stuff like their internal tools for determining if a system has too many factions being bugged or outdated.

The stuff about the PMF name not being intended to just be a pure representation of a group is kinda weird, since that's what many use it for, but it's true I guess. We don't control factions like we control squadrons. Just manipulate them from the outside, and so can those who aren't part of the group.

The core problem is probably these repeated mentions to IP. Yes, others have gotten past it, but that'll be because Frontier's process isn't very strict or consistent, not because they were specifically allowed. Yours didn't slip past the net, so they have no choice but to deny it. It's an understandable policy.

 

[varonica]

They were probably a bit looser in their requirements and many IP owners are often willing to let things pass depending on the use the name is being put, until some IP owner decides to threaten action, then all bets are off. Some of the names mentioned in the imgur link aren't actually anyone's IP property either. "Memento Mori" and "SIMBAD" are both common usage unrestricted terms, you can't restrict their use by claiming them to be an IP because they aren't.

You will just have to think of a different name that doesn't directly reference a restricted IP.

 

[Fake Newts]

The reason these rules aren't retroactive is because it's much harder and more disruptive to go in and change existing factions than it is to restrict new applications. Fdev have been progressively tightening the rules as the bubble filled up and the consequences of unfettered PMF insertion started to become clear. I do agree that they should update the information.

When the game was young Squadrons didn't exist as a tool for players, there were fewer PMFs and the BGS operated on quite different rules (fewer states and a single state per faction, not per system). Players were able to get PMFs inserted into places that'd now be restricted, and with names that'd now be disallowed. It may seem unfair, but due to design the bubble isn't getting any bigger, and is pretty full as it is.

Moreover there are thousands of abandoned PMFs who either didn't maintain their faction or who didn't do enough research prior to insertion and were strangled by established groups. It wouldn't be sustainable for Frontier to keep adding them at the same rate, and with the same hands-off attitude. It would also be disappointing for the groups themselves. I know several people who got all excited about their new PMF only to be instantly stomped and then quit the game disillusioned. The system should've been designed with the anticipation that players would like to move the sand in the sandbox dynamically, allowances made for faction death, sustainable ebb and flow etc... but Fdev didn't really anticipate the BGS being used in the way players use it. I think it's understandable that they're more restrictive now, in context.

If you're insistent on wanting to add your own PMF, adjust your name and research your insertion point carefully. Even with "100 players" you could be DOA if your insertion threatens the wrong established group. I would actually recommend at this point that you consider adopting an existing faction (which a lot of playergroups did back in the day anyway), or joining an existing organisation.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

But if that is the case why are old PMFs and New ones treated differently

Quite a lot of the rules around PMFs used to be a lot looser until they realised why an extra rule was necessary - but they haven't applied the new rules retrospectively in most cases.

There's also the issue that space for new PMFs is fairly rapidly running out - at current rates, probably in about 18 months. So the rules are likely to get gradually tightened anyway to try to keep some space open as long as possible.

 

[Archangel2153]

It looks very simple to me. They've clearly stated (repeatedly) that you can't have a faction created with the 'other IP' name you've submitted, and that's not going to change. Choose a different name?

We've done so far

Turian Hierarchy --- denied in which I 100% understand.
Cipritine Armory --- denied. again I understand.
Armax Arsenal --- same as above.

We've then tried variations of

Tatil Unified Rapid Intervention Alliance Navy

Tatil being the home system we want.

I wouldn't ever count Tatil Unifed Rapid Intervention Alliance Navy as Bioware IP. Yet still denied under IP bans.

So then my question would be how far exactly do IP BANS go? And where is the line from Direct IP names, and vague references?

I suppose I wouldn't be allowed "Calibrations Incorporated" --- since Garrus says Calibrations a lot, and Bioware would own the IP on the word "Calibrations".

Probably not "Aislings azure" either since Bioware mentioned Azure and have IP on that as well?

Not even "Centurion Hierarchy" --- since the Roman Empire has IP on Centurions?

It's easy enough to make comparisons with similar names, but that also seems to be banned, being able to make comparisons to other IP.

at a certain point it feels less and less like a Direct IP ban which I 100% understand; and more of a if FDEV Agent can make a comparison it'll be denied.
Which then makes PMF apps a very subjective and unclear process.

Quite a lot of the rules around PMFs used to be a lot looser until they realised why an extra rule was necessary - but they haven't applied the new rules retrospectively in most cases.

There's also the issue that space for new PMFs is fairly rapidly running out - at current rates, probably in about 18 months. So the rules are likely to get gradually tightened anyway to try to keep some space open as long as possible.

So they should implement a similar process to FC decommissioning, where Minor factions and player Minor factions can be co-opted/dissolved into other factions if they lose enough presence, and only important or legacy minor factions would remain at the very least in their home system. Wild you would not have a process to counteract PMF crowding by now.

The reason these rules aren't retroactive is because it's much harder and more disruptive to go in and change existing factions than it is to restrict new applications. Fdev have been progressively tightening the rules as the bubble filled up and the consequences of unfettered PMF insertion started to become clear. I do agree that they should update the information.

When the game was young Squadrons didn't exist as a tool for players, there were fewer PMFs and the BGS operated on quite different rules (fewer states and a single state per faction, not per system). Players were able to get PMFs inserted into places that'd now be restricted, and with names that'd now be disallowed. It may seem unfair, but due to design the bubble isn't getting any bigger, and is pretty full as it is.

Moreover there are thousands of abandoned PMFs who either didn't maintain their faction or who didn't do enough research prior to insertion and were strangled by established groups. It wouldn't be sustainable for Frontier to keep adding them at the same rate, and with the same hands-off attitude. It would also be disappointing for the groups themselves. I know several people who got all excited about their new PMF only to be instantly stomped and then quit the game disillusioned. The system should've been designed with the anticipation that players would like to move the sand in the sandbox dynamically, allowances made for faction death, sustainable ebb and flow etc... but Fdev didn't really anticipate the BGS being used in the way players use it. I think it's understandable that they're more restrictive now, in context.

If you're insistent on wanting to add your own PMF, adjust your name and research your insertion point carefully. Even with "100 players" you could be DOA if your insertion threatens the wrong established group. I would actually recommend at this point that you consider adopting an existing faction (which a lot of playergroups did back in the day anyway), or joining an existing organisation.

Agreed that abandoned PMFs are a major issue.

We spent weeks looking at where we wanted to start our PMF and a lot of good systems had a PMF that was clearly abandoned.

They were probably a bit looser in their requirements and many IP owners are often willing to let things pass depending on the use the name is being put, until some IP owner decides to threaten action, then all bets are off. Some of the names mentioned in the imgur link aren't actually anyone's IP property either. "Memento Mori" and "SIMBAD" are both common usage unrestricted terms, you can't restrict their use by claiming them to be an IP because they aren't.

You will just have to think of a different name that doesn't directly reference a restricted IP.

Yup 100%

But I've offered names that don't directly reference IPs. Those were still rejected.

But at least from where I see it. Some of my name suggestions follow the same vein of logic.

If it's not a direct IP name, or not a DIRECT reference then why is it still denied/banned?

I was expecting this to be about the myriad other problems I've heard from people trying to submit PMFs. Stuff like their internal tools for determining if a system has too many factions being bugged or outdated.

The stuff about the PMF name not being intended to just be a pure representation of a group is kinda weird, since that's what many use it for, but it's true I guess. We don't control factions like we control squadrons. Just manipulate them from the outside, and so can those who aren't part of the group.

The core problem is probably these repeated mentions to IP. Yes, others have gotten past it, but that'll be because Frontier's process isn't very strict or consistent, not because they were specifically allowed. Yours didn't slip past the net, so they have no choice but to deny it. It's an understandable policy.

Yes but if I am friends with a member of Perez Ring Brewery and he needs help winning a war in CZs

He is working towards influencing HIS groups PMF. Even if I am not a part of it.

you don't need to be a member of a faction to work for them. The representation is still there even if everyone can influence it.

Each CMDR I've spoken with also views the agents understanding of PMFs as weird or bewildering. So

What's the truth regarding PMFs?

Debating rules with the people creating and enforcing the rules is going to end well
This is not a democracy, their turf, their rules.




Weird, but somehow lots and lots of other cmdrs registering a PMF managed to do it without dramas

Their rules are posted on their webpage.

But those are not their rules because their rules are completely different.

I have yet to see what the rules are besides "No IP Refs" which is apparently the same as "If I can draw a comparison of the name to anything it's denied".

If they has posted their current rules there wouldn't be a problem.

It's best to think of it as a dnd dungeon master. Ultimately, the rules are guidelines meant to guide you towards a good gameplay experience. But if you are abusing the letter of the rules in violation of their spirit, they have every right to reject your requests, letter of the rules be darned.

Follow the spirit of the game, and most problems will magically vanish.

Every DM I've ever worked with was able to both:

State the rules
explain their logic

The stated rules are not the rules. They are the old rules.

The new rules are unclear and not posted.

FDEV agent has in no way bothered to explain why the current rules exist or how far the Naming restriction extends. -- see my naming suggestions and the weird line between being able to draw a reference no matter how vague -- and direct name pulling off of other IP.

The lack of congruency does not lead to good gameplay experience. That would require clear cut and updated rules, and Agents willing to explain why those rules were put in place. But FDEV has never been open with their player base. Look at all the information they are willing to give console players regarding Odyssey.

Good gameplay experience would be asking for a PMF - having an agent who is willing to help us craft a name that falls within guidelines -- inserting PMF --- having fun BGSing our PMF.

"letter of the rules" you mean the posted guidelines? Because those are actually not the rules for over two years now according to Agent; though not his department, not his problem.

 

[Archangel2153]

I would gladly call my PMF something elite friendly

Tatil Unified Rapid Intervention alliance Navy --- or variations of

Or Calibrations Incorporated

Centurion Hierarchy

Macedon Munitions INC.

NYX interstellar munitions

Tatil Hierarchal Meritocracy

Solana's angels

I could keep going.

All of these names would get denied by Agent. Because Agent is looking for mass effect refs. DENIED.

Yet I can't see how these would break the NO IPs rule.

Would be like trade marking the word "react"...

In many of my replies with the agent I asked for clarification or more information. But they didn't even bother and eventually just closed the ticket.

Showing they in no way were looking at my name suggestions on an unbiased case by case basis.

I mean if you call your PMF "Name" and some other IP has a vague side character by that name. Then it's denied?

OR if IP uses "Word" then IP owns that "word" so denied?

That lack of a posted clear cut outline for what the restrictions are is the issue. I'm arguing against the Agent not the rules.

 

[varonica]

That's because you are playing silly beggars aren't you, now you've started doing that they may not ever give you one!

It doesn't take a genius to take the first letter of each word in this;

Tatil Unified Rapid Intervention Alliance Navy

and figure out out it spells Turian, which of course is a Mass Effect IP.

And that's after trying;

Turian Hierarchy....Mass Effect IP (Turian's being a race in Mass Effect)

Cipritine Armory....Mass Effect IP (Citrine being the capital planet of the Turians

Armax Armory......Mass Effect IP (Armax being the supplier of Elite Turian Military Units)

If it was me after that lot I would just flat out tell you to go away and don't bother applying, because you are just being silly, stop using Mass Effect IP!

In many of my replies with the agent I asked for clarification or more information. But they didn't even bother and eventually just closed the ticket.

Exactly what I would have done, you've got to the point of just trolling by then!

 

[Archangel2153]

That's because you are playing silly beggars aren't you, now you've started doing that they may not ever give you one!

It doesn't take a genius to take the first letter of each word in this;



and figure out out it spells Turian, which of course is a Mass Effect IP.

And that's after trying;

Turian Hierarchy....Mass Effect IP (Turian's being a race in Mass Effect)

Cipritine Armory....Mass Effect IP (Citrine being the capital planet of the Turians

Armax Armory......Mass Effect IP (Armax being the supplier of Elite Turian Military Units)

If it was me after that lot I would just flat out tell you to go away and don't bother applying, because you are just being silly, stop using Mass Effect IP!

See my earlier question on where does it stop being IP

Is "Calibrations Incorporated" Mass effect IP?

100% my fault I started a player group under a Mass Effect name
100% my fault I wanted a PMF related to my player group.

so now What name can I have that can be Elite compliant
and also still in some way be connected to my Player group?

Or is FDEV agent right -- PMFs are not meant to represent anyone, are just a naming activity, and I should not have bothered.

I'm all for being criticized because I can use it to challenge my own perception and come away better prepared.

I would also ask what the line is between references and Intellectual Property.

 

[Northpin]

Their rules are posted on their webpage.

But those are not their rules because their rules are completely different.

I have yet to see what the rules are besides "No IP Refs" which is apparently the same as "If I can draw a comparison of the name to anything it's denied".

If they has posted their current rules there wouldn't be a problem.

And then the FDev support agent told you to stop referencing other IPs (which from the moment they told you so, IT IS A RULE) and then you kept hugging the web an tried various ways to circumvent the said rule and still use other IP references with the net effect of antagonizing the support and having your ticket closed.

It seems to me that you tried really hard to break the rules by outsmarting the support... and failed.
Pretty much as @varonica said in the post below

That's because you are playing silly beggars aren't you, now you've started doing that they may not ever give you one!

It doesn't take a genius to take the first letter of each word in this;



and figure out out it spells Turian, which of course is a Mass Effect IP.

And that's after trying;

Turian Hierarchy....Mass Effect IP (Turian's being a race in Mass Effect)

Cipritine Armory....Mass Effect IP (Citrine being the capital planet of the Turians

Armax Armory......Mass Effect IP (Armax being the supplier of Elite Turian Military Units)

If it was me after that lot I would just flat out tell you to go away and don't bother applying, because you are just being silly, stop using Mass Effect IP!



Exactly what I would have done, you've got to the point of just trolling by then!

 

[varonica]

See my earlier question on where does it stop being IP

Is "Calibrations Incorporated" Mass effect IP?

100% my fault I started a player group under a Mass Effect name
100% my fault I wanted a PMF related to my player group.

so now What name can I have that can be Elite compliant
and also still in some way be connected to my Player group?

Or is FDEV agent right -- PMFs are not meant to represent anyone, are just a naming activity, and I should not have bothered.

I'm all for being criticized because I can use it to challenge my own perception and come away better prepared.

I would also ask what the line is between references and Intellectual Property.

Doesn't matter now, surely after being told to stop using other IP's you should have stopped right away and not been silly beggars with stuff like;

Tatil Unified Rapid Intervention Alliance Navy

Because that's just trying to sneak around the rules, it's like writing a swearword and putting in symbols @#$ instead of some letters then complaining about being moderated, it's to late, you've done your dash. It stopped being about IP when you started trying to break the rules by disguising the IP in silly word games.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

So they should implement a similar process to FC decommissioning, where Minor factions and player Minor factions can be co-opted/dissolved into other factions if they lose enough presence, and only important or legacy minor factions would remain at the very least in their home system. Wild you would not have a process to counteract PMF crowding by now.

Wouldn't really help if they did.

The vast majority of the space is being taken up by the 50+ system mega-factions (largely all continuing to expand), and most of the rest is taken up by the smaller 10+ system expansionists. We're now up to 11 factions with over 100 controlled systems each - those 11 alone are taking up over 5% of inhabited space, just from their controlled systems. The top 50 PMFs (just 2% of the total) are blocking almost 20% of the bubble through control or presence.

Even if they removed every single player faction which doesn't control any systems from the game - no appeals, no consideration about how recently it was added, no defence that it owns a bunch of stations, no consideration of how many systems it's present in - the sort of massively destructive action which would lead to hundreds of complaints threads ... it'd free up maybe 1000 systems and keep things open just a few more months. Anything more proportionate would probably take longer to implement and test than the time it bought...

For example, there's a PMF in this system that appears to be entirely abandoned. No system or station control, has been on tiny influence for a long time, player group appears to be dead. https://eddb.io/system/factions/14334 ... Deleting that faction would make absolutely no difference to the space available for PMFs, though, because the system is one of the seventy-four controlled by another PMF.

 

[Archangel2153]

Doesn't matter now, surely after being told to stop using other IP's you should have stopped right away and not been silly beggars with stuff like;



Because that's just trying to sneak around the rules, it's like writing a swearword and putting in symbols @#$ instead of some letters then complaining about being moderated, it's to late, you've done your dash. It stopped being about IP when you started trying to break the rules by disguising the IP in silly word games.

The "rules" should be reflected in the FAQs page. Which is two years out of date.

anything can be construed as a reference to anything.

And at that point FDEV agent is right in saying that PMFs are not meant to represent groups.

Sure I pushed the same angle. I chose to do so because I argued I was applying under the posted guidelines.

Also my fault trying to learn exactly how far something would be considered a reference to something I guess.

 

[Archangel2153]

Wouldn't really help if they did.

The vast majority of the space is being taken up by the 50+ system mega-factions (largely all continuing to expand), and most of the rest is taken up by the smaller 10+ system expansionists. We're now up to 11 factions with over 100 controlled systems each - those 11 alone are taking up over 5% of inhabited space, just from their controlled systems. The top 50 PMFs (just 2% of the total) are blocking almost 20% of the bubble through control or presence.

Even if they removed every single player faction which doesn't control any systems from the game - no appeals, no consideration about how recently it was added, no defence that it owns a bunch of stations, no consideration of how many systems it's present in - the sort of massively destructive action which would lead to hundreds of complaints threads ... it'd free up maybe 1000 systems and keep things open just a few more months. Anything more proportionate would probably take longer to implement and test than the time it bought...

For example, there's a PMF in this system that appears to be entirely abandoned. No system or station control, has been on tiny influence for a long time, player group appears to be dead. https://eddb.io/system/factions/14334 ... Deleting that faction would make absolutely no difference to the space available for PMFs, though, because the system is one of the seventy-four controlled by another PMF.

You think raising the Faction cap in each system would help?

Also very interesting insight, I appreciate it.

seems like the golden age for PMF applications is over anyways.

 

[varonica]

The "rules" should be reflected in the FAQs page. Which is two years out of date.

anything can be construed as a reference to anything.

And at that point FDEV agent is right in saying that PMFs are not meant to represent groups.

Sure I pushed the same angle. I chose to do so because I argued I was applying under the posted guidelines.

Also my fault trying to learn exactly how far something would be considered a reference to something I guess.

You were given the new rules, you chose to willfully ignore them and try to play by the old rules. I mean disguising the name as the first letter of each word wasn't even trying to hide the reference to anyone who knew what you were trying to do, I mean it took me all of a fraction of a second to realise that.

And it wasn't "how far something would be considered a reference", it was indeed a direct reference, you knew it was a direct reference, they knew it was a direct reference. And no "anything can be construed as a reference to anything" is demonstrably not true, here you are still trying to play word games to defend yourself!

You think raising the Faction cap in each system would help?

It might help others, it probably won't help you, your name is probably on a "delete this ticket as soon as it appears" list now!

 

[Northpin]

Also my fault trying to learn exactly how far something would be considered a reference to something I guess.

It seems to me you tried really hard to find ways to circumvent the rules.
And the support is certainly not there to help you do that.

The "rules" should be reflected in the FAQs page. Which is two years out of date.

The agent told you the rules from the web are outdated and the rules are now tighter.
But you refused to accept them: No No, the rules are on the web. I will follow those rules
How silly is that?

At this point they can refuse any further application from you or from the group you represent for reasons like repeatedly trying to circumvent the rules.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

You think raising the Faction cap in each system would help?

The general faction cap, no - the number of systems which are full to the limit with only NPC factions is tiny, and the other side effects it would have on the BGS might be significant.

Allowing PMFs to be added to systems which already contained other PMFs (but not the home system of another PMF) would free up thousands of systems on paper and reduce the rate of filling-up massively afterwards ... but of course almost all of those newly-available places would be extremely hostile for the incoming PMF, and only really suitable for those whose ambitions were "second place influence in one system, maybe own a minor station or two"

The only workable solutions I can think of are:
1) Massive and unprecedented expansion of the bubble itself - adding another 2-3000 inhabited systems a year would be sufficient to keep ahead of PMFs taking them up. Problem with that is that it would worsen everything else by spreading out the player base even further.
2) Change influence from per-system to per-asset, adjust BGS incentives to make ownership of Odyssey settlements, Horizons settlements and space installations less of a negative. Every few years add a new asset class (as each of Horizons, Beyond and Odyssey did) to keep things moving without spreading the player base too thin. The obvious problem is that it would require a near-complete rewrite of the entire political BGS and its interfaces with the rest of the game (especially of how the expansion, conflict and retreat mechanisms work), and there's probably not time to do that, nor any guarantee that the result would be fun.