Repeating myself from when I first saw this comment:
As I mentioned to you before, I suspect werewolf/mafia/avalon is a pretty bad analogy for how to suss out the trustworthiness of people irl:
in games, the number of werewolves etc is often fixed and known to all players ahead of time; irl a lot of the difficulty is figuring out whether (and how many) terminally bad actors exist, vs honest misunderstandings, vs generically suss people.
random spurious accusations with zero factual backing are usually considered town/vanilla/arthurian moves in werewolf games; irl this breeds chaos and is a classic DARVO tactic.
In games, the set of both disputed and uncontested facts are discrete and often small; this is much less the case irl.
in games, bad guys have a heavy incentive to be uncorrelated (and especially to be seen as being uncorrelated); irl there are very few worlds where regularly agreeing with the now-known-to-be-bad-actors is a positive update on your innocence.
In games, the set of actions available to both good and bad actors are well-defined and often known in advance; irl does not have this luxury.
etc
All these points, but especially the second one, means that people should be very hesitant to generalize hard-won lessons about macrolevel social dynamics from social deception games to real life.
Repeating myself from when I first saw this comment: