The Syndicate

Is there a place yet on The Syndicate for general discussion of Mafia theory? By this I mean strategy, setup concepts, game balance, et cetera...

This is a thread I've long wanted to make on RYM, but I always felt it wouldn't be very successful (just because the forum isn't Mafia-oriented and the frequent players already have a general Mafia thread). Would any of you folks like to carry on a discussion like this? Some potential things we could discuss are:

- What constitutes good town play / good mafia play?

- When is it appropriate to bus a team mate as mafia?

- What numerical ratios are best for a balanced setup?

- What kinds of commonplace rules are ideal or not ideal for facilitating the best games?

Any topics like this could be covered. Any interest?

I've actually been working on a document like this for personal use, but I see no reason not to post it here. Epignosis has also done extensive studies in this field. Mine only has two sections so far.

Mafia: A Survivor's Guide

How to Lie

As the great George Costanza once said, “it’s not a lie if you believe it.” The trick to posting like a civvie and voting like a civvie is to think like a civvie. When I am reading the thread, I try to temporarily forget who my teammates are and what my own role is. View other people through the lens of an ignorant civilian with no information and see what conclusions you come to, then post those. As long as you’re not getting a teammate lynched in doing this, it is the safest way to behave.

Don’t overthink your posts, don’t use a lot of adverbs or mitigating language, and don’t plan your vote too carefully to cultivate a certain record. Voting records that look too good are sometimes suspicious, since a civvie would be unlikely not to have a few bad votes. Vote for who you WOULD think was bad, if you did not know they were good.

Defending Yourself

If you are the top suspect of the day, you’d better get busy defending. Civilians are lazy and mafia are opportunistic. If your lynch is easy, you are going down. It’s your job to make it hard.

The number one mistake I see in defenses is a failure to present an alternative. People have to vote for someone. You can scream “I’m not bad!” all you like, but if there’s not someone else who looks worse than you by the end of the day, people are still going to vote for you. Get aggressive. Make a case on someone else. Convince people that, while you may not look good, this guy looks way worse. If you’re persuasive, you will at least buy yourself another day to regroup, and if your case turns out to yield a baddie, you will be all but cleared.

Another thing you can do to defend yourself is present facts. Emotional appeals rarely work, but if you can show how your voting record makes no sense for a baddie, you may be able to swing some votes away from you. Always bear in mind that there still has to be someone to swing them to, though.

My document was game design and execution.

I'm curious. Has there been a closed setup on The Syndicate? If so, how frequently do they appear?

If it isn't clear, when I say "closed setup", I mean a game in which the roles included are not public knowledge. "Info dumping" is legal and expected.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm curious. Has there been a closed setup on The Syndicate? If so, how frequently do they appear?

If it isn't clear, when I say "closed setup", I mean a game in which the roles included are not public knowledge. "Info dumping" is legal and expected.

Closed setups are a rarity here, but, as can be seen in the Hosting Thread, they will be a little more common in the upcoming years. I can think of only one game that was closed (Monty Python and the Holy Grail), although I don't recall what the "info dumping" status was in that one (I died very early on).

Insertnamehere once had a Sherlock Mafia that was open setup, but infodumping was allowed (free BTSC, too). I tend not to care for those. They aren't Mafia games, but rather something altogether.

I prefer a closed setup that punishes infodumping naturally (i.e., the Mafia do the job). It is quite a feat to be able to use info to lead the civilians to victory without getting night killed yourself.

Great thread, Jay! Look forward to this discussion.

For now, I'll just answer your question to say that, to date, there has only been one closed setup game here, Monty Python and the Holy Grail hosted by Roxy and DisgruntledPorcupine. It had no role listing. However, I don't believe info dumping was particularly encouraged. In terms of games submitted to the next queue, I will be hosting RUSH Mafia as a closed setup, timmer and I are hosting Wheel of Time as a closed setup, and Spacedaisy is hosting Stargate SG-1 as a closed setup. There may be others as well, but if so, they don't immediately come to mind. It'll be intriguing to see an increasing mix of both setups over the next few queues. I plan to continue utilizing open setups, but closed setups provide a completely new backdrop for me to experiment with mafia games, and I love experimenting with new ideas, so naturally I plan on making use of them.

Ah, I've been ninja'd by Epi.

It's an interesting culture here. I had truly never previously encountered a Mafia community where info dumping is frowned upon. I'd never even considered the notion of disallowing it. I can see the appeal -- it forces players to stay within the original mafia-hunting atmosphere that Mafia is supposed to be about. At the same time though, incorporating power roles with legal info dumping adds a completely different informational element to the game. I don't think it negatively affects balance either, at least not in places where it is typical.

One setup which could probably use a rule which forbids info dumping is the single cop setup being used in the Champions games on 2+2. Those too often become a mess of logic-based reads and suspicious behavior ceases to be relevant.

I believe the primary appeal of a closed setup is that it empowers a host to be more creative. Closed setups are much harder to break, meaning there is more freedom to tinker with them without worrying about that. For the players, they allow roleclaiming to be legal (I understand why roleclaiming is not typical here where open setup role madness is the norm), and more important it allows for roleplay. That's the thing I miss most when I play in an open setup: I can't claim my character and roleplay within my game-relevant effort.

In closed setup games where characters and alignment correlate, roleplay is still possible because the mafia team (and anyone else potentially affected, like rogues or power roles) are given fake characters by the moderator. This prevents their exposure through character claim investigation.

Outing is discouraged in open setups because it inevitably leads to mass outing, where at endgame all the civvies have claimed roles and there's no longer anywhere for the mafia to hide. It's an evolving attitude as more hosts are building mechanics into the game to combat the downsides of outing: in Long Con's upcoming World Reborn game, roles are listed without alignment. You can claim a role but you're not making the mafia's job harder by doing so.

In my upcoming Warcraft game you can try claiming a role but it won't reveal your alignment and will have the added effect of potentially letting one of your enemies (who has the same exact role) know that you aren't on their team.

I'm of the belief that role claiming can be an essential strategy but it relies a lot upon the host's game design. As such, each game is different. I think that's part of the appeal of The Syndicate, we're not afraid to experiment with our own standards.

While I'm not a fan of closed setups in general, there was one on RM that was quite fun: timmer's Liar's Club II.

Here's the game itself (you can read the entire thing in less than an hour):

http://forum.revolutionmafia.com/viewto ... 105&t=2116

I have a friend who used to play here who couldn't cope with ANY role secrets, because they prevented him from being completely analytical and solving the puzzle. I am not really that way, and I like a little mystery in the roles (I usually use vague wording as opposed to *secrets*) but pointless speculation drives me crazy (what if there's a role that can force votes? What if there's a role that can control what people say?), and that would probably be way worse in a closed setup.

thellama73 wrote:I have a friend

Here's a good example of the roleplay potential of a closed setup. Arrested Development

I do think we could use more closed setup games just as a change of pace. I'm guessing that the format will be better represented on the next poll of games, not the current one.

Turnip Head wrote: I'm of the belief that role claiming can be an essential strategy but it relies a lot upon the host's game design. As such, each game is different. I think that's part of the appeal of The Syndicate, we're not afraid to experiment with our own standards.

I echo this sentiment completely.

I dig it. And I don't dislike open setups. I have much less experience with them, but they're just as fun. The obvious cultural differences were probably what drew me here the most. The only standard here that I think I'd genuinely struggle with (and haven't seen yet) is the one that doesn't allow dead players to win the game.

I have played a couple games with a closed set up on awardswatch. I think it's fun and different, but I also felt it was more important for me to know the theme. If you don't and it is a site that encourages info and role claiming, it makes it harder to fake role claim if you end up mafia.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote: I'm of the belief that role claiming can be an essential strategy but it relies a lot upon the host's game design. As such, each game is different. I think that's part of the appeal of The Syndicate, we're not afraid to experiment with our own standards.

I echo this sentiment completely.

Rolecclaim in one of my games and see if this holds up. :P

fingersplints wrote:I have played a couple games with a closed set up on awardswatch. I think it's fun and different, but I also felt it was more important for me to know the theme. If you don't and it is a site that encourages info and role claiming, it makes it harder to fake role claim if you end up mafia.

That's definitely true. If there's a theme and characters are relevant alignment, then two things MUST happen:

1. The theme must be known before the game.

2. Fake character claims must be given to players with roles that could be compromised by their true characters being known.

I usually don't read the roles until later in the game anyways, so not having them shown is actually an advantage for me.

linki JJJ in my (one time lol) experience I was given a list of "possible" roles not assigned to any civvie, but you can also role claim an ability so that was more the tricky part. You say you are a cop and then three others pop up. It's definitely fun, it just takes some getting used to. For me at least.

DharmaHelper wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote: I'm of the belief that role claiming can be an essential strategy but it relies a lot upon the host's game design. As such, each game is different. I think that's part of the appeal of The Syndicate, we're not afraid to experiment with our own standards.

I echo this sentiment completely.

Rolecclaim in one of my games and see if this holds up. :P

Considering I know how you feel about it... no. :P

fingersplints wrote:I usually don't read the roles until later in the game anyways, so not having them shown is actually an advantage for me.

linki JJJ in my (one time lol) experience I was given a list of "possible" roles not assigned to any civvie, but you can also role claim an ability so that was more the tricky part. You say you are a cop and then three others pop up. It's definitely fun, it just takes some getting used to. For me at least.

This sounds like a lot of fun.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I dig it. And I don't dislike open setups. I have much less experience with them, but they're just as fun. The obvious cultural differences were probably what drew me here the most. The only standard here that I think I'd genuinely struggle with (and haven't seen yet) is the one that doesn't allow dead players to win the game.

You want to talk about this rule? Let's talk about this rule.

Where's Golden when you need him? :P

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I dig it. And I don't dislike open setups. I have much less experience with them, but they're just as fun. The obvious cultural differences were probably what drew me here the most. The only standard here that I think I'd genuinely struggle with (and haven't seen yet) is the one that doesn't allow dead players to win the game.

You want to talk about this rule? Let's talk about this rule.

Where's Golden when you need him? :P

I've never been a fan of this either, but I always assumed it was just something that was up to the host. Most civilian win conditions require surviving to the end. Something like the "Epic Challenges" from BR and LC's recruitment game could see play as alternative win conditions for each role, perhaps only requiring that you play your role well to win... which requires a different kind of skill than just surviving.

I don't like winning a game if I am not alive at the end

Is no lynch an option at RYM?

Turnip Head wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I dig it. And I don't dislike open setups. I have much less experience with them, but they're just as fun. The obvious cultural differences were probably what drew me here the most. The only standard here that I think I'd genuinely struggle with (and haven't seen yet) is the one that doesn't allow dead players to win the game.

You want to talk about this rule? Let's talk about this rule.

Where's Golden when you need him? :P

I've never been a fan of this either, but I always assumed it was just something that was up to the host. Most civilian win conditions require surviving to the end. Something like the "Epic Challenges" from BR and LC's recruitment game could see play as alternative win conditions for each role, perhaps only requiring that you play your role well to win... which requires a different kind of skill than just surviving.

It is definitely up to the host. In earlier games where I didn't allow dead players to win, I only did so because I was under the impression it was the norm, and never considered otherwise.

I think achieving the right balance between individual effort and team effort is key here, and I'm incredibly excited to see how the "Cygnus Coins" system works in RUSH Mafia, since I think that system's success (or failure) will determine how often I use similar systems for awarding wins in the future. To summarize how I'm approaching win cons in that game, wins can be achieved individually, regardless of whether your faction wins, but you get halfway there automatically if your faction does win, retaining incentive.

In Death Note, I'm incredibly glad I allowed a dead win, but only under the conditions of achieving one's win con, which wasn't always straightforward. It was a good experiment, even if I made a few of the win cons pretty tough, hence why I gave boo his win even though he technically failed his win con (since Daisy had to kill Mata for her to win, thereby destroying boo's win con, since Mata needed to be alive).

I think the reason "dead wins" were never too typical, from what I would surmise, is due to the fact that it fails to actively encourage players to try their best and survive, especially since we've had problems with inactivity. On the flip side, the argument that civilians must look out for themselves at the expense of their team in order to secure the win ("I have to look suspicious enough not to die!") is a good argument, since such behavior is counterproductive.

fingersplints wrote:Is no lynch an option at RYM?

It is (and it's usually the default result of a tied tally), but it nearly never happens. No lynches are seen by many (including me) as worse than lynches of townies. Nothing is learned, it just gives the mafia team a free kill.

fingersplints wrote:I don't like winning a game if I am not alive at the end

Is no lynch an option at RYM?

Personally, I don't like winning a game that I don't feel I deserved. Typically that means I died, but not always. Sometimes I die and I feel I still deserve to win because I put in 110% while I was alive. On the flipside, there have been a couple of occasions where I was alive and won at endgame and I didn't feel I played that well.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The only standard here that I think I'd genuinely struggle with (and haven't seen yet) is the one that doesn't allow dead players to win the game.

The first time I hosted, I allowed the dead civilians to win. One civilian beat the LMS because of a prize won Day 0 (the game lasted 22 days). Given that there were two Mafia teams of 6 apiece AND LMS involved, it seemed fair (plus there was heavy, heavy manipulation involved).

Normally, dead civilians do not win, but dead Mafia do. There are a couple of reasons I like this (even though I myself have only ever won once as a civilian in years of playing, and that was only because I had a role that basically couldn't be killed):

1. It allows the Mafia to punish info-dumpers. It's no fun (in my opinion) playing an excellent Mafia game only to get screwed because someone got info on you. Making it so that the guy with info has to be alive to win forces him to be judicious with how he uses his info.

2. It makes the experience of winning (not that I would really KNOW or anything) that much grander. Knowing you caught all the Mafia AND survived is awesome.

The problem with not allowing dead civilians to win is that the talkative players get taken out and, if the civilians win, the people who did nothing win and those that did all the work don't. That sucks. I plan to remedy this going forward: Gone are the days of coasting in my full games. The P-score requirements are going to be harsher.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I think the reason "dead wins" were never too typical, from what I would surmise, is due to the fact that it fails to actively encourage players to try their best and survive, especially since we've had problems with inactivity. On the flip side, the argument that civilians must look out for themselves at the expense of their team in order to secure the win ("I have to look suspicious enough not to die!") is a good argument, since such behavior is counterproductive.

There's the rub. If that rule was instilled on RYM, then the quality of town play would plummet. Mafia teams don't leave players alive because they're playing well. If I have to choose between these two things:

1.) A player who doesn't put forth any effort and gets lynched on Day 1 wins the game with the town along with all of the other townies who played their butts off.

2.) A player who played his/her butt off and was night killed for it does not win the game while a player who lived through LyLo because he/she did not play hard does win the game by pure chance.

I choose #1 every time.

Epignosis wrote:Normally, dead civilians do not win, but dead Mafia do.

I never understood this.

While your arguments are fair, don't civilians have to sometimes make sacrifices for their team just as mafia, and thus deserve to win if they have died?

My problem is allowing civilians who died early and contributed very little to win, so I can understand the hesitation, but I've also seen mafia contribute little, die, and then win.

What about this as a compromise:

Night killed players of either alignment can win.

Lynched player of either alignment cannot win.

I still don't like this honestly, but I think it's at least a lot better.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Normally, dead civilians do not win, but dead Mafia do.

I never understood this.

While your arguments are fair, don't civilians have to sometimes make sacrifices for their team just as mafia, and thus deserve to win if they have died?

My problem is allowing civilians who died early and contributed very little to win, so I can understand the hesitation, but I've also seen mafia contribute little, die, and then win.

Civilians don't need to throw each other under the bus. If you make it so that Mafia must be alive to win, they can't do this. With our open setups, civilians "making sacrifices" means a bunch of shitty infodumping that will ruin Mafia and make it uncompetitive.

I like having to survive as a civilian to win. I know it may never happen, but the feeling when it does will be super satisfying to me.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What about this as a compromise:

Night killed players of either alignment can win.

Lynched player of either alignment cannot win.

I still don't like this honestly, but I think it's at least a lot better.

THAT is something I've thought about but never pursued.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

fingersplints wrote:Is no lynch an option at RYM?

It is (and it's usually the default result of a tied tally), but it nearly never happens. No lynches are seen by many (including me) as worse than lynches of townies. Nothing is learned, it just gives the mafia team a free kill.

The one game I played where I was a civvie, several mafia were outed and still managed to escape the lynch by not having the right number of votes. It seemed crazy, but I guess it kind of counterbalances the info dropping some.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

fingersplints wrote:I don't like winning a game if I am not alive at the end

Is no lynch an option at RYM?

Personally, I don't like winning a game that I don't feel I deserved. Typically that means I died, but not always. Sometimes I die and I feel I still deserve to win because I put in 110% while I was alive. On the flipside, there have been a couple of occasions where I was alive and won at endgame and I didn't feel I played that well.

This is proably a better explanation for me too. I have won games that I don't count as a win for various reasons. Thats was mine and usually is the players fault though. Hosts should be allowed to set whatever win conditions they choose. I think as long as your win condition is well defined you don't have much right to complain. You can see what you are getting into.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What about this as a compromise:

Night killed players of either alignment can win.

Lynched player of either alignment cannot win.

I still don't like this honestly, but I think it's at least a lot better.

THAT is something I've thought about but never pursued.

I like this because it lets a player have more control over whether they win or lose.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It's an interesting culture here. I had truly never previously encountered a Mafia community where info dumping is frowned upon. I'd never even considered the notion of disallowing it. I can see the appeal -- it forces players to stay within the original mafia-hunting atmosphere that Mafia is supposed to be about. At the same time though, incorporating power roles with legal info dumping adds a completely different informational element to the game. I don't think it negatively affects balance either, at least not in places where it is typical.

One setup which could probably use a rule which forbids info dumping is the single cop setup being used in the Champions games on 2+2. Those too often become a mess of logic-based reads and suspicious behavior ceases to be relevant.

I'm not used to it either. This site is unique in which it enforces a 100% ban on infodumping. I can see the advantages in which it enforces a less ability driven gameplay, but in other hands it forces players to act like they don't know something they do, which kind of limits the game imo.

Where I come from (Naruto Forums), role revealing is usually disallowed, but you can reveal stuff you know. So while town cannot massclaim or exploit claims to find mafia (which I agree really breaks the game), they can say it when they know something. Even if this is kind of a soft role claim, people can always doubt it since the player can have any number of reasons to know something.

Also most games there are closed setup, though open setup games are fairly common.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I believe the primary appeal of a closed setup is that it empowers a host to be more creative. Closed setups are much harder to break, meaning there is more freedom to tinker with them without worrying about that. For the players, they allow roleclaiming to be legal (I understand why roleclaiming is not typical here where open setup role madness is the norm), and more important it allows for roleplay. That's the thing I miss most when I play in an open setup: I can't claim my character and roleplay within my game-relevant effort.

In closed setup games where characters and alignment correlate, roleplay is still possible because the mafia team (and anyone else potentially affected, like rogues or power roles) are given fake characters by the moderator. This prevents their exposure through character claim investigation.

Closed setups make the game a lot more exciting too, imo. A lot of the fun is seeing all the awesome roles getting revealed as the game progresses. This is a kind of dangerous road for the host because they can potentially implement roles that troll the players too hard.

Turnip Head wrote:Outing is discouraged in open setups because it inevitably leads to mass outing, where at endgame all the civvies have claimed roles and there's no longer anywhere for the mafia to hide. It's an evolving attitude as more hosts are building mechanics into the game to combat the downsides of outing: in Long Con's upcoming World Reborn game, roles are listed without alignment. You can claim a role but you're not making the mafia's job harder by doing so.

In my upcoming Warcraft game you can try claiming a role but it won't reveal your alignment and will have the added effect of potentially letting one of your enemies (who has the same exact role) know that you aren't on their team.

I'm of the belief that role claiming can be an essential strategy but it relies a lot upon the host's game design. As such, each game is different. I think that's part of the appeal of The Syndicate, we're not afraid to experiment with our own standards.

One thing I did in the first game I hosted (and which I intend to do in every role madness game I make in the future), is to fill the game with anti-cop roles. Millers, godfathers, people who fool lie detects... the sky is the limit. My first game had a role with a one-shot that turned every cop into an insane cop for a full cycle. And it was a closed setup game, so you can imagine the ensuing chaos.

So, you want to trust that guy saying he has night information on someone? Do it at your own risk, and don't get someone lynched based only on what a cop says. Use your head too.

To be honest, my preferred games (open or closed) tend to be vanilla-heavy. I love the purest form of the hunt.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:To be honest, my preferred games (open or closed) tend to be vanilla-heavy. I love the purest form of the hunt.

I like classic scumhunting too. But I love strategizing with abilities. I see a role and I start to plan on how I'll make the most of it. I've pulled some cool gambits involving some pretty weak roles before.

I try to be a Deist host. Make the game to the extent that you can, reveal to the extent that you can, and then let it go and let the players take over.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I dig it. And I don't dislike open setups. I have much less experience with them, but they're just as fun. The obvious cultural differences were probably what drew me here the most. The only standard here that I think I'd genuinely struggle with (and haven't seen yet) is the one that doesn't allow dead players to win the game.

Win conditions are totally up to the host.

I've been debating whether I should let the last 10 civilians alive win instead of just the surviving ones (or some number...). This would allow more talkative, but killed, civilians to win.

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I dig it. And I don't dislike open setups. I have much less experience with them, but they're just as fun. The obvious cultural differences were probably what drew me here the most. The only standard here that I think I'd genuinely struggle with (and haven't seen yet) is the one that doesn't allow dead players to win the game.

Win conditions are totally up to the host.

I've been debating whether I should let the last 10 civilians alive win instead of just the surviving ones (or some number...). This would allow more talkative, but killed, civilians to win.

What about that civilian who does everything right, and gets NK'd on Night 1 as a result?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I dig it. And I don't dislike open setups. I have much less experience with them, but they're just as fun. The obvious cultural differences were probably what drew me here the most. The only standard here that I think I'd genuinely struggle with (and haven't seen yet) is the one that doesn't allow dead players to win the game.

Win conditions are totally up to the host.

I've been debating whether I should let the last 10 civilians alive win instead of just the surviving ones (or some number...). This would allow more talkative, but killed, civilians to win.

What about that civilian who does everything right, and gets NK'd on Night 1 as a result?

Then you did something wrong.

I always do win with your team, dead or alive. I think it encourages more risk taking, and outrageous ballsy ploys. Only winning alive, especially forcivs, encourages playing to survive rather than playing to win. Blendiness, meh.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I dig it. And I don't dislike open setups. I have much less experience with them, but they're just as fun. The obvious cultural differences were probably what drew me here the most. The only standard here that I think I'd genuinely struggle with (and haven't seen yet) is the one that doesn't allow dead players to win the game.

Win conditions are totally up to the host.

I've been debating whether I should let the last 10 civilians alive win instead of just the surviving ones (or some number...). This would allow more talkative, but killed, civilians to win.

What about that civilian who does everything right, and gets NK'd on Night 1 as a result?

Did you do everything right, then?

Implying you can control why mafia kill you.

I've night killed people just because I thought their avatar was stupid.

XthAtGAm3RGuYX wrote:Implying you can control why mafia kill you.

I've night killed people just because I thought their avatar was stupid.

Says the guy with the stupidest, grainiest picture of Hsien-Ko.

Epignosis wrote:

XthAtGAm3RGuYX wrote:Implying you can control why mafia kill you.

I've night killed people just because I thought their avatar was stupid.

Says the guy with the stupidest, grainiest picture of Hsien-Ko.

Your inferior 150x150 av sizes are to blame for that

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I dig it. And I don't dislike open setups. I have much less experience with them, but they're just as fun. The obvious cultural differences were probably what drew me here the most. The only standard here that I think I'd genuinely struggle with (and haven't seen yet) is the one that doesn't allow dead players to win the game.

Win conditions are totally up to the host.

I've been debating whether I should let the last 10 civilians alive win instead of just the surviving ones (or some number...). This would allow more talkative, but killed, civilians to win.

This is an interesting twist, I like it.

Addressing MM's concern, what about the 10 civilians with the most posts? I suppose that could encourage more quantity than quality though.