They clearly exist but they don’t exist for the purpose of this system. It defines what we think it means to be better over a series of games in a way that encourages certain things and discourages others.
We don’t think someone who says more true things on average is “better” at mafia than someone who says less so the system doesn’t reflect it. Same holds for a lot of your other examples.
A person who says more true things is more likely to win the game thank someone who says more not true things, no?
I don’t see why that would be true.
If you are a cop claim, then saying true results would allow your team to win more often than if you were to say less true results.
One example doesn’t mean its generalizable.
An analogous example that might surprise you - at the top level the players who win more/are higher rated at chess (with the exception of carlsen) actually have a lower computer accuracy move to move than people sometimes significantly lower rated.
Likewise in the market the one who is right more often doesn’t necessarily make more money.
Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if the people with the highest town win rates lie more as town 
Who knows.
Anyway my point is you have to make a choice for what you define as the final arbiter of what is to be measured and we think of the social component as a means to the end and not the metric to be measured. If you want to make a game that directly rewards people for saying true things you can go make that game, this isn’t it.
You’d think in a Social deduction game, measuring good social skills would be the first metric you’d try.
Funnily enough no. The first metric people try for most binary result games is winning and losing. And if there’s reason to need more granularity (sample size!) you look at the next most concrete thing. The social component is looked as more of “ah this item A has some correlation with result X” but it doesn’t into itself give the reward.
One last example that might help: Consider salesmen. Their important metric is making more sales. Their job is often based on social competence. We have some sense that x, y, and z social abilities are good things for a salemen to have and do. Someone does all those things but get less sales than someone who doesn’t. The latter is the better salesman. The first gets no bonus points for being better at x, y, and z.
We won’t be taking your approach of looking at qualitative things. Please stop discussing it here.
The social part helps you know who to vote/kill/etc and to convince others to act in certain ways, but it doesn’t mean much on its own.
If I had 100% accuracy and pretended I was a cop with red checks on all the mafia, telling the truth doesn’t really matter, the things I said are just a means to convince people to vote in a certain way and get me the win.
You can even run games entirely without really talking at all (see: Shut Up and Vote games).
Shut and vote games had words therefore talking.
No word shut up and vote games when? (Images and emojis)
You could say way more with emojis if you have access to all of them than the shit you could say in those games LOL
Look let it not be said that queues for mafia games are all bad.
It led to the creation of SUaV
No the quotes have only emojis and images you cant write your own
ANYWAY, taking signups for g3/g4. ATM we have 1 (and potentially tn will come back).
You can obviously /in again if you were in game 1 and can even /in if you’re in game 2.
We did a few iterations of this
Actually a better way to do this might be /in = I’m okay with getting placed in a ranked vengeful game at any time and /out means remove me from the pool.
anyway the plugin to show the ratings and shit is almost done, will probably put it up tmrw.
You know I’m always /in. I probably don’t even have to say it. But in any case.