I am the GM of the second game.
I also compelled this social combat because we have a white court vampire in the group who does not know he is a vampire. Further complicating things and strengthening his denial is his previous work as a supernatural PI and protector of the weak.
During this social conflict, the WCV (who feeds on addiction) got a good taste of our group holy warrior, who was in the throes of religion.
This is only the second session of my game, and I've really been focusing on introducing the new players to everything they can do in the DVRPG.
The first few sessions are including a training story. For instance, all the combat (so far) hasn't been very challenging for the group. The social combat I instigated between PCs was partially for RP purposes (I greatly enjoyed it), partially because it was realistic (most of our PCs have a bit of an antagonistic relationship in their backstories), and partially as training for PC social conflict.
For instance, when the BCVs of the game start trying to put the mind whammy on my PCs, I want them to know how to deal with it without explanation.
I think explanation in the middle of supercharged, emotional scenes really tends to detract from them.
I would not have let any PCs take any serious social consequences from this sort of thing, but we have two characters in the group who are sneaky and subversive. If they don't get to do stuff like this (fooling other PCs and lying to them), their character is pointless.
The characters largely make the story, but I as GM have to allow the various PCs what they build their PC to do.
The worst consequence so far is our Scion of Odion who got a moderate mental consequence for a Cassandra's Tears vision.
So far nobody in the group believes him about it either.
BTW, as per RAW, after reading the Cassandra's Tears power, inter group social conflict is not only allowed, but necessary if anyone has the Cassandra's Tears power.