When your arguments are weak, there's nothing I can do but hand wave. Go back to your earlier post attacking me in D1, it's a load of hot air. What you describe is a gut read, but you keep dressing it up as something more than that and have focused on that, and little else, for the entire game so far.
And then you accuse ME of fake effort. It's insulting.
"Defended Hyperkitty day 1", yes I was more convinced of scum elsewhere and in hindsight was defending more than I realised (well, redirecting). I don't apologise, I town read Hyperkitty.
"Preparing CzarTim as an option" is objectively untrue. I was away from the thread for a bit so my vote came in relatively late. I had been slightly suspect of Tim before but I'm pretty sure I never voiced it here.
"Defended Flux D2", yes I town read him, problem? Even if I didn't I would be insisting we resolve this tracker mess, it's ridiculous to suggest they could both be town.
Inconsistent assessment? It's basically a read list based on what I thought where the key issues of the day. It was abandoned because it turned out kind of pointless and I'd already been going for two hours. Inconsistent? I don't see it, Floppa's position looked shady to me so I called it. That's Mafia.
I have to retract on the point of CzarTim, it was the option of UltraBoo. I made my case here: #1542 (Flux' called out Tim to start the train on Boo, which wasn't true ~ I misremembered, doesn't change the argument)
And yes, it's mafia to call out shady things. But it's suspicious to call it out on someone who barely adressed the issue, while neglecting someone else who openly took the so called shady position far stronger (me wanting to policy lynch).