I... kind of see the kirsche case? I don't really agree that his scumreads have been unmemorable; his exchange with champ was pretty belligerent. I agree that he didn't really engage much with durza and fenrir while he was actually voting them. He voted fenrir but then spent most of his posts after that pushing durza, and once he voted durza most of his posts were about champ. But then once he voted champ he kept on pushing champ and definitely engaged him there, maybe to his detriment even because I still don't get what the point of going so hard in dissecting champ's posts and responding directly to him, when clearly he didn't have good opinions. kirsche should be selling champ as a lynch more to us than to champ himself.
all that being said, I have a tough time getting over kirsche voting earlio over durza at phase end. it's not like acid, who had been defending durza for most of the phase. kirsche had durza as an equal or stronger scumread to earlio throughout the phase, and had voted durza earlier on. sure, he could be gambling that earlio would be lynched anyways; the wagons were 4-2 in the favour of earlio at the time (although it was closer to 4-3 because twin, who was voting me at the time, was sort of a durza vote). but the swing between lynching the town doctor vs the scum hooker on day 1 is massive, especially in a low role-power game. imo any scum who could have feasibly voted durza without it looking out of place would have done so, even if it would have looked bad later.
I would still like kirsche to respond to the stuff asek said and I said above though. also want to know his opinion on durza and champ with the earlio flip in mind.