Do you have to "intent to hammer"?

[callforjudgement]

I think this may depend on the setup? "Intent to hammer" is very different between a role madness game (in which you can expect the player in question to be plausibly saved by their claim), and a vanilla game (in which there's no claim that the player in question can reasonably make). I'd say that a hammer without intent is arguably pro-town in a vanilla game, because expressing your intent doesn't actually do anything nightplay-wise to help solve the game. Meanwhile, if votes on someone come along with the potential risk of an unexpected hammer, it makes everyone's votes more meaningful; placing a vote on a scumbuddy is something of a real risk because they might end up getting hammered out of nowhere.

On the other hand, "intent to hammer", or the more or less equivalent "You're at L-1, claim" from someone off the wagon, is highly important to avoid lynching power roles who could be saved by their claim (or at least coralled, i.e. having their actions directed by town in such a way that it proves their role, if not their alignment). Forcing claims is normally anti-town, but in the case of someone you're genuinely planning to lynch, you'd probably be fairly happy if they claim a powerful power role and end up getting nightkilled as a result; it's better than mislynching them. Note that this implies that a player who gives intent to hammer should, theoretically, actually place the hammer upon hearing a "vanilla" claim; this rule tends to not be followed in practice because townies think they can outWIFOM it, but they are usually wrong.

Of course, in a vanilla, "we don't use intents here", meta, town should be very careful about running random wagons up to L-1 early in RVS! I think that from the logical point of view it's a more townsided way to play, but everyone needs to be on the same page or you'll end up with games being ruined by impulsive townies.

[callforjudgement]

Lolhammers / early lynches without much discussion really hurt town, and I wouldn't blame people for blacklisting over them. The intent isn't a major part of that, though; it's a bad idea whether you state intent or not. (The benefit of stating intent in that situation is that someone else might unvote in response when they realise that someone is seriously suggesting it.)