The interrogator may not ask any questions in which the assumption is that his/her subject had lied to any of the previous questions - This makes it so addressing the same question twice, and also asking someone if they are/were lying is illegal. This includes question sets like "Who do you think the wolves are?" "Who do you think the humans are?" Because one would assume that whoever wasn't mentioned in the first question would be the answer to the second question.
-
-
Re: Interrogator Rule
inbut for now... postCount++
-
Re: Interrogator Rule
wrong thread, sweet stuff.RIPComment
-
Re: Interrogator Rule
The interrogator may not ask any questions in which the assumption is that his/her subject had lied or will lie to any of the questions - This makes it so addressing the same question twice, asking someone if they are/were lying, and asking if they will lie illegal. This includes question sets like "Who do you think the wolves are?" "Who do you think the humans are?" Because one would assume that whoever wasn't mentioned in the first question would be the answer to the second question. The lynchee has only the responsibility to tell his/her own relative truth, whatever he/she believes. Because of this, the interrogator must specify for the lynchee NOT to answer if they do not know the absolute truth.
Updated.Comment
-
Re: Interrogator Rule
I was typing something about this in the post game thread when I saw this thread. Copy Paste job:
Also, on the line of rule changes for this role, shouldn't there be some kind of limit to the answers? If not, you could ask two simple questions that a wolf would obviously lie on, then say "who are the 3 wolves?" and they'd have to give away all of them if they know who they are, or even just themselves if that's all they know. I think it should be changed to having to be something like "if you are a wolf, who is one of your partners?"
In fact, I'd think that changing it so that only boolean responses are allowed. Yes/No still gives a lot of information without making it possible for the wolf to give away specific members of his own team without the interrogater even asking about that individual. For example, it couldn't be:
Interrogater: Who is a wolf?
Lynchee: Tass
It'd have to be:
Interrogater: Is Tass a wolf?
Lynchee: Yes
This, however, is assuming that the wolves will know each other. I definitely think that from now on wolves should know each other unless there is good reason otherwise. A counter to this would be to use the interrogater role without a guardian, meaning that the interrogater wouldn't be able to come out day 1 and lead an alliance that would most likely stomp the wolves.
I dunno. I didn't think all this stuff out completely. Let me know what you all think.
Comment
-
Re: Interrogator Rule
I like the boolean idea, that would fix a few problems.Comment
-
Re: Interrogator Rule
While it makes it easier, it removes a whole lot of power from the interrogator. The point of the role is to gain information as an interrogator. They don't have to restrict their questions to yes/no answers; they ask specific questions.
Used properly, that role can be really good. Tps just never exploited it.
No need to take the easy way out and ruin a perfectly good (albeit somewhat complicated) role.
--Guido
Originally posted by GrandiagodComment
Comment