Talk:Truth or dare?

message: the age group seems more like it should be at least 13 unless it is the kiddie version like "Carry a walnut on your slipper without dropping it" the only fun ones are embarrassing!
What ididnt get this game
 Eymuuf (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age group... 

message: The variant that I'd seen played had a question always being asked, with the recipient either choosing to answer or choosing to accept an as-yet-unspecified dare from the asker in lieu of answering. --Christopher Thomas 20:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule variants 

message: She recently got naked because of the game. I found this out from MSNBC's website. -Amit
Is that noteworthy?  I'm guessing that thousands of people have gotten naked because of this game. dougmc (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You state this as if the media is some kind of bible of truths. Watch out what you read and believe. Some people don't realize how absurd or wrong the media is until a story is covered involving themselves. Unless you have a better source like her Biography or published statement by her friends, I doubt it will qualify for an encyclopedia due to the nature of the claim. By the way, I read in the newspaper that an Israeli soldier was copulating with a donkey... --78.86.159.199 (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless he did it during a game of Truth or Dare, that fact doesn't belong here.  However, I've added it to Israeli, soldier, donkey, and newspaper.--Father Goose (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention Britney

message: Variation of this game (similarity to gambling) started in (1990's) sometime, went way to far it was started and over in the same day. Mostly, do not remember it until word dare is brought up. In some instances it ruined lives. Write a premise script about that.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by VSP2009SEEN (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  game's history 

message: Advertisements have no place on wikipedia, as 67.244.110.76 is posting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.211.217 (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make A Dare 

message: this ENTIRE article is original research, and sounds like it was written by a middle schooler.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.58.7 (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research 

message: OK, so I've never actually played the game and I'm aware that this literally doesn't matter at all, but isn't there a pretty big loophole in the rules of the game? Any time someone choses dare, but you'd rather they had picked truth, you can just dare them to tell the truth about whatever question you wanted. Therefore, if you pick truth, you can be forced to tell the truth about something, but dare encompasses everything truth encompasses, but much more, so if you want to be safer, picking truth every time makes sense unless you know the other person won't exploit this loophole, which, to be fair, most people probably won't.
Just curious as to what other people think about this and if it makes sense to include in the article. —Platypus Man | Talk 06:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, outright lying isn't a loophole, that's justblatant cheating. There's quite a big difference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.92.1.32 (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

text: That rule does not exist. We cannot create rules on Wikipedia. We can only cite facts. And these facts need to be documented. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loophole? 

message: I'v played Truth, Dare, Double-dare, promise to repeat, fire in the barn.  Truth and dare are the same as always. Double-dare is when the person giving the dare has to do it along with the person being asked. Promise to repeat is where a person is asked to repeat a certain phrase 10 times (usually something stupid, embarasing, or extremely long) and if they fail to repeat it word for word they would be removed from the game.  Fire in the barn is when a person is told three people they know are in a burning building and only one can be saved, the person must decide who they would save (example: If your girlfriend, your mom, and your best friend were in a burning building, who would you save?).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.112.135 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Variation

message: Is it really necessary to state that questions must fit local law? Isn't it a bit redundant to explicitly note that a game played by a group of people automatically includes societal rules of that group into the game? For instance, should the article on Monopoly note that players must not intentionally roll the dice into other players' eyes because it's against the law? (assault or whatever)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.116.145 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The way we used to play when I was a kid did not require that dares be within the law. If you can document such a rule please do so. I would add that I hated that game because it usually involved acts of vandalism or other lawless behavior. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local law 

message: I forget what book the mention was in. I remember some of the rules, and theory behind them. Basically it was to prevent scoring on truths and dares that are impossible, illegal, obscene, humiliating, etc, and it was presented as a model of social, and scientific structure. Play begins with a random draw of numbers straws, cards, rolls of a die etc. Highest or lowest draws are the active players. Highest or lowest determining the dared, and darer. To prevent a darer or the group from targeting a specific player the following rules. If a player dared a player to go to the moon the dared player could challenge. The darer or dared could have the darer do the dare himself or call for a vote on whether the dare was possible. The other players would vote on whether the dare was possible or not. If they voted it was not possible the dared player would get a point unless the darer performed the dare himself. Then the darer would get a point for the wrong vote, and a point for the dare. If he didn't perform the dare himself the dared player got the point for the wrong dare, and a point for the refusal of the darer to perform his own dare. If the vote was in favor of the darer the dared could challenge any of the voters or the darer to do the dare. If that person refused the dared got a point for the wrong vote. He could then demand the darer do the dare. If the darer refused the dared got a point for the wrong vote, a point for the wrong dare, and point for the darer's refusal to do his own dare. If the darer did his own dare he got a point for the wrong vote, a point for the dared's refusal to do the dare, and a point for his performance of the dare. Similar rules for the truth. If a player's truth was challenged the players would vote or risk being challenged to tell the same truth. If the vote accepted the truth the truth player would get a point for the truth, and a point for the vote. If the vote was against the truth player he could challenge any of them to the same truth. I don't recall the rules after that. I recall there was some free for adjustments allowed. Basically it is to prevent humiliation, and ganging up. 
98.164.71.229 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules mentioned by Isaak Asimov