Traitors of the Republic Day 3

Number your points next time, makes it easier for me to reply.
1. I already told you plenty of times I said I didn't suspect myself, but I didn't say you can't suspect me.
2. Okay, that's true. But I didn't know Wolffe would protect himself.
3. It's true, it happens in a lot of games. Namialus is a good loyalist, he proofed this last game.
4. I would have looked at both possibilities, but as long as you didn't do anything suspicious I'd not accuse you of being scum.
5. Yes I use that theory, among others. Why wouldn't I?
6. Well, you were complaining about the lack of discussion but you could have started one instead of just complaining about it. But you've been inactive for most of the game.
7. What other forms? Saying there's no discussing going on? And I told you your evidence was horribly bad, which by the way made you look like scum to me because no smart loyalists would use proof that bad. I told you it was a bad way to start a discussion because you said you only used it to start a discussion.
8. Diverting attention from yourself is something any player would do. And Potato was also on my suspect list, so it was suspicious to me how you defended him.
9. Well, that's your opinion. I think it's one of the most convincing pieces of evidence... mainly because hardly anything happened during day 1 and 2 because most people are inactive and I was the only one to vote on day 2, and most people didn't vote on day 1 either.
10. Because your accusation made no sense, you kept using the same evidence against me, but it didn't make much sense and I already told you many times why I listed myself as loyal, yet you kept ignoring that, you didn't even reply to it. That seems scummy to me. And the fact that no one agrees with me makes me look more loyal, not more scummy.
11. Actually I would, they didn't make sense.
12. Of course I'm nervous, 4-5 loyalists died, we can't afford many more mistakes and you're pushing a vote for me, and I know I'm loyal.

Pinda stands out to me the most.

Why?

View my previous evidence.

2. Idk. No other options or felt it was worth it. You made it sound like you thought that Wolffe might protect himself in the PM.
3. Namialus being a strong player doesn't mean he can't make mistakes.
4. Exactly. But you seemed a little quick to go from average suspicion, to bigger suspicion, to voting me.
7. You thought the same about Wolffe but trust him now.
8. I do. Just not enough to consider voting him today.
11/12. You could've tried different approaches. And I was trying to get to the bottom of this (confusing) idea. I wasn't even accusing you half the time. But you still decided that you were going to vote me after about 6 posts of it.

Because Ahsoka apparently agreed with me?

Like this if you are seeing all these Huge list and don't bother to read them confusing things.

Like this if you are seeing all these Huge list and don't bother to read them confusing things.

I liked this... I bet I seem real lazy but it feels like the lists are redundant and they're worded so that's confusing...

Well I never thought his first piece of "evidence" was very good but I ave reason to be suspicious of you as well so...

2. How would there be no other options on day 1?
3. No, but it does mean the scum could fear him.
4. Because you kept using the same ridiculous evidence...
7. Wolffe is the protector, why wouldn't I trust him.
8. You said you didn't earlier. But fine, I can agree with you I won't vote for him today.
11/12. How could I try a different approach? There's really only one way to explain why your proof made no sense. And you have been accusing me since page 1 of this thread... And 6 posts (I think there were more) about the same evidence without listening to my defence is a lot.

You