I don't understand what your point here is? I'm saying Ali doesn't get towncred for a hammer on a wagon she wasn't invested in, that she did just for a flip.In post 1896, Deimos27 wrote:1. They hammered scum out of two competing wagons. Surface level analysis is that scum would stay on Elements wagon or choose to no lynch rather than hammer a buddy there, which is against their wincon. Hence hammering gives towncred. How deep in the WIFOM chain do you want to go when analysing scum motivation?
You appear to be arguing against that for some reason, saying that I should be giving her towncred?
I don't know if it's next to a VC, I just know that there were errors in the VC and so that's a reasonable reason to assume the source of confusion. And, as you point out, it's unlikely that Ali-scum would not be cognizant of where Cycle-scum had voted. Also, I don't see what the motivation is for Ali-scum to fake not knowing where Cycle-scum is voting, since it's such a small thing.In post 1896, Deimos27 wrote:2. Why should the fact that Ali's comment appears next to a vote count make you believe it to be genuine, under your framework? It only affects town!Ali, not scum!Ali, since scum!Ali knows whether the vote happened regardless of whether the VC is correct, if they are hyperaware of scumbuddy behaviour, as you suggest. This can still be scum!Ali faking it, especially if they are actively daytalking and setting strats up. If they aren't actively daytalking, then, as you suggest, they might have genuinely missed their scumbuddy's behaviour. Like this is only very weakly AI at best.