As I understand it ALL the town roles are verifiable. They either belong to groups, who can out a false claim (at the cost of outing themselves) or they have specific night or day actions which we can keep a record of to trip up false claims. So, I am not really understanding your point here.
On preview: That certainly got people talking. Here are my thoughts on different ways to handle this (thoughts that may well be wrong in important ways, or could use a little tweaking - please point out where I’ve gone off the rails):
- All Gallows Roleclaims are Lies: It doesn’t matter what protestations you make, if you’re voteleader we’re going to lynch you. If the claim is false, True Role players stay quiet. Investigator roles must claim and report their investigations - but they end their days dancing the hemp fandango in any case. When we discover our tragic mistake, we’ll use your information for good.
Pros: Scum have no incentive to false claim. We don’t out our power-roles. Cons: We just kill them ourselves.
- All Gallows Roleclaims are True: If you make a claim, we’ll believe you and move to the next suspect (who will probably claim, but may run out of time.) Again, True Role players maintain a dignified silence. Seers investigate the reprieved (Witches investigate second suspects) and report back after a few days. Then we lynch scum by day while the Vig offs them by night.
Pros: We don’t kill our own. Cons: We leave scum alive waiting for results, while we die at night. Get the timing wrong on the reporting back of findings and we’ll die. When the Seer claims, scum will counter-claim causing massive confusion.
- Use Your Own Judgement: We don’t follow rules but back our own reasoning re. claims. If you believe it, change your vote. True Role players use their own judgement about outing scum. The occasional no-lynch should be an option, giving us time for an investigation. To give us time to discuss roleclaims, we vote early in the Day. Properly done, pushing for roleclaims might actually be a good way to generate information.
Pros: encourages full participation. If you give us nothing for Days then suddenly expect us to believe your claim, you’re going to have trouble making a case. Cons: Leaves us open to manipulation by scum, will ask quite a lot of our collective judgement.
Yeah, I don’t want to come off too zealous on the lynch lurkers plan. But since it’s Day One and we don’t have much else to go on, I figure it’s better than random, and may spark some participation. I mean - I voted for you and here you are! 
(Just kidding, I know you were away).
I will
Unvote nesta
and
vote Sachertorte
based on my earlier HOS.
A lot of roles are not verifiable. The Warlock, for one, isn’t. Witch is technically verifiable but trading a Witch to out a single scum is an awful idea.
By the way, I’ve realized that I made two mistakes in an earlier post. The first is that I said that the Coroner is not a verifiable role, when of course it is – (s)he can give us the Role of all dead players before they’re announced. If the Coroner gets one wrong, (s)he’s lying.
The second is that I said that Witches should breadcrumb. I was lumping Witches in with the other investigative roles without thinking. The point of breadcrumbing is to leave your information where we can see it after you’re dead. However, there are multiple Witches sharing information, so the loss of a single Witch does not mean that the information will be lost, like with a Seer or Detective. Therefore the Witches only need to breadcrumb when they’re down to one, or suspect that all of them will be killed overnight.
And even if they were all verifiable, they’re not instantly verifiable, which means we’re still stuck when it comes to deciding whether to lynch a claimed role on Day 1.
sachertorte’s point about cross-fire between scum is good, and something I hadn’t considered; at this point I’m willing to entertain the idea of no lynch, but I have some reservations, since it doesn’t give us the information about voting patterns that we’ll eventually need.
Oh, and the Scotsman role is also verifiable. Lynch him and if he survives, he’s the Scotsman.
Freemasons are verifiable given time
Coroners can verify by making accurate predictions about Roles.
The real Vigilante will kill any false claimants off his own bat.
The Scotsman will verify by surviving the lynch… or by being left until the True Scotsman (who said their weren’t any?) is attacked at night and verifies himself by naming his attacker.
Detectives can verify so long as they can give us the name of one Wolf. This could be a bit messy, but would give us a one-for-one kill.
Seers can verify by revealing their discoveries. Again, could take time to sort out.
Witches can also verify through investigation, which is better than multiple Witch claims. However, they can’t do that toDay. Therefore I suggest that toDay, we ignore Witch claims. The odds of us having a lying scum on our hands are much higher than actually having a Witch, so we should stick to our guns. In the logic of deterrence, if the scum are convinced we won’t change our minds then they won’t have an incentive to false claim.
Similar logic applies to the Vicar - we can’t really afford to lose him, but the odds are even more in our favour. I suggest that if the lynchee claims Vicar, we lynch regardless
I don’t see how other roles can verify - but they can be investigated.
This is a horrible idea!!!
Do I even need to explain why it’s so bad?!?
Vote amrussell
My point is, if they’re verifiable, there’s no reason to kill them!
Are you guys on drugs or something?
Having said that early votes were good, I’m going to:
vote nesta
Despite being active in the thread, I count only one substantive post, in regards to mass role claims (Post 177). Even this is a bit fence-sitty, arguing that a mass roleclaim would probably work, but wouldn’t be any fun. Since then, we’ve had two posts about a previous game, with no other contribution.
<rushes in carrying briefcase with dozens of papers poking out the sides> Sorry, sorry…I’m here. My apologies – work decided that since I was doing fine handing one new account each week or so, then three new accounts in two days would be no great shakes. Anyway…
I find myself in an odd position – for I believe the first time ever, I find myself in full agreement with Pygmy. I’m reading both One And Only Wanderers and amrussell’s posts, and all I can think is “is it them or is it me?”.
I’ll hold off voting until I can give the thread a second read-through, but geez, guys – there seems to be some seriously skewed logic there…
If you let the scum know that a Vicar claim gets a reprieve, you are *guaranteeing * yourself a Vicar claim. If you let them know that it won’t work, you’re deterring them. If we have to sort out a Vicar claim toMorrow, we’ll end up outing the Vicar or outing the Seer, or leaving scum alive and posting. That’s an advantage to the scum which, if one is about to be lynched anyhow, they would be fools not to take. Our best strategy is to deter the claim.
In our best case scenario, there are what? 3 Wolves, 2 Cabal, 2 Undead, as absolute minimums. So if we get a Vicar claim, it’s a 1/22=4.5% chance we’ve got a real Vicar and a 7/22=31.8% chance we’ve got a lying scum. If there are 9 scum, it’s around 40%. Those are pretty good odds, especially considering the alternative.
You’re assuming everybody’s got an equal chance of being called to the noose, and that scum are automatically going to claim Vicar. IMHO, neither of those are good assumptions.
We can’t just say “We’re going to lynch any claimed Vicar,” because, hmm, it might be the real Vicar! We’ve got to take it step by step; if there’s a claim, wait to see if there’s a counterclaim. If so, proceed with lynching the one that seems more scummy. If not, we’ll have a discussion as to weather that role would or would not likely be part of the game.
Anybody want to bet me that amr is an undead?
Forgot to add:
Who let the scum know the Vicar gets a reprieve? And by “deterring the claim”, what does that do to the real Vicar?
Seriously, I’d love to have some of what you’ve been smoking. If it doesn’t show up on a urinalysis.
What’s really bad in that all the working out about role claims, no-one has mentioned the fact that there may be multiple of each role.
**Pleonast ** has not said anywhere that there are singular of any town role except perhaps the Witches or the Freemasons.
That includes, Vicars, Scotsman, Vigilantes etc.
All role claims need to be considered based on the actions and reasoning of the players and how provable they are. I just don’t want to see one person claim, another counter claim and for them both to be lynched when they the first turns out to be correct. Please be careful when counter claiming. If you are sure the other claimant is lying go for it. If you think they are town, well its up to you.
The only up side is with multiples of the same role is that if we do lynch one, we at least have a spare 
Hey now! What’s wrong with agreeing with me? 
This is important, and I was about to post about it anyway.
The only Roles whose number is fixed are the Witches: if there are Witches in the game, there will be exactly three. Zero or three Witches. And the Freemasons: if they are in the game, there are at least two. So there can’t be exactly one Freemason. Any other Role may have from zero up to 21 Players (yes, the game could be 21 Vampires against a lone Werewolf :p).
Two Players both claiming Role X could both be truthful. Enjoy. 
cat, meet pidgeons…
wow these role claims are going to get awfully WIFOMy
“I’m Spartacus.”
“No, I’M Spartacus.”
Groovy.