I'm not sure we can go with scummy/not scummy based on claims.
We could possibly try to figure out which claims feel the fakest, I guess.
On faust's mega-post -- I didn't have issue with it as an exercise, although I'd differ on some ratings. But that's to be expected -- they are opinions. I'm surprised by some of the vitriolic responses, though.
I think "lynching the strongest powers for scum" idea is exactly what Arch was trying to fight by having his odd qualifier about how roles were assigned. Like, you can't give a killing role to scum, since then they get two kills. So you'd think that the Poisoner is town, except you don't even know if that's really his role.
Here's a fun theory: scum claims Poisoner, then he says he can prove it. Says he targeted Player A. Imagine he's actually scum just lying. Now, the other half of the scum team can target that guy to kill him (maybe), and it looks like it's true. I mean, he couldn't coordinate that, unless he had plans on how to make it obvious to the other scum team. Or maybe I just thwarted his plan.
But the point is, we can do this for most of the controversial roles.