Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
I work on the assumption that if a clue seems fairly subtle, then it's more likely to be a true clue. Yes, there's a level of WIFOM involved, and yes, you can overthink it, but it's still better then nothing.
Ugh, this reminds me of vanilla games where people tried to analyze the writeups for writing style, then of course people would mask their styles, and people would point fingers based on obviously false data fed to us by the mafia.

Relying on information that comes from the imagination of a liar is unwise to me; ignoring it and voting randomly or based on who seems to be trying to use that "information" to get people lynched would seem more sensible to me.

When you can deduce that some things stated must be lies, and others must be truths, then it becomes usable data. Right now it feels like random gibberish, and that's nothing to base a case off of. Better than nothing? My position is that it is precisely nothing, on round one. On round two, you can at least choose from two likely scenarios; on round one it is meaningless.

That said, i've played 1 or 2 clue games in my mafia career; my approach could be naive but it feels more sensible to me.