I can't really think of anything someone would raise from a previous game that shouldn't be on the table. If you mean 'well, he lied last game, so he's lying now' that's a different story obviously, we shouldn't and typically don't hold blatant lies against people from when they were a DF.

I think FT's claim is relevant, and he raised it, not me. He said he didn't know about Yuna's claim and I pointed out it seemed unlikely. Further research on the matter shows the word 'miller' does not appear in the header of any day 4, 5, or 6 message, meaning the claim is still dubious but not outrageous. Had it appeared multiple times in a title, I would be voting for him right now, because it would have been practically proof of a lie. But no matter how you cut it, I can't see this area of speculation as either irrelevant or outside normal game mechanics. The greatest armament players have against the growing expertise of players as they gain experience is that they also develop behaviors, so previous games become highly relevant.

I know some of you may feel snookered from the way previous behavior has been used as a justification to vote for people, but that was done because it made sense. When someone acts abnormally for them, or says something which contradicts comments made in previous games, it is a very good indicator something is up. I've used it to help find DF, I've used it as a DF to help find roles. It is a solid tactic. Additionally, just the debate on the issue provides info, whenever people are talking, especially when not defending themselves, they often drop clues without realizing it. On day 1 it is vital to attack every single thing that drops on the table or else you get stuck with a random vote and nothing in way of evidence come day 2.