If the officer is compelled to answer any question put to him, why would it be necessary to torture him? It would be far more efficient just to calmly question him and not risk killing him, knocking him unconscious, or making him forget details before you could extract the information you needed. If you wanted to torture him just for fun, you could do that after you got all the information.
I predict the death penalty would return to places where it has been placed on hold or abolished. The single thing that has made more people support death penalty repeal is the list of cases where people have been wrongly convicted of capital crimes. If we could learn with certainty whether someone is guilty simply by asking, people wouldn’t feel as guilty about executing them.
Of course, people who oppose the death penalty on other grounds would continue to do so.
In order to get the answer you want and not a truthful but evasive answer.
I think there would be a lot less bs - that’s for sure!
The OP says that the VVV’s nanites or whatever compel everyone to answer any question they hear truthfully & non-evasively. Which is not to say there won’t be torture; just that no one will have any illusions about it being anything but recreational.
How non-evasive is non-evasive, Skald? Some questions take a lot of thought. If someone asked me what the worst thing is that I’ve ever done, the only honest answer I could give right away is, “I don’t know.” In fact, when I first considered that question, nothing really bad came to mind. Of course, if you asked me the same question the next day, I’ll probably have done some thinking about it and have something much more interesting to say!
On the other hand, if someone were to say, “How do you really feel about me?” I could probably start talking right away and keep talking for a few hours, even if it’s someone I just met. At what point could I stop talking, and would I have any control over which details would be saved for the end in the hopes I don’t get to them?
Obviously the biggest implication is for international espionage. Yes, I predict the world will be a flaming pile of mushroom clouds by Christmas.
Woudl it kill the pron industry? If no woman could pretend to enjoy something she actually disliked. . .
I definitely picked the nuclear wasteland/cockroaches option.
I have problems with porn which I may explore in a long and serious post another day. It’ll probably be footnoted and it’ll definitely be self-righteous, and probably somebody should prepare the Pit thread now to save time. Anyway, I don’t think the VVV will prohibit that sort of acting, so long as John Holmes or whoever doesn’t actually ask Sasha Rayne if she likes his big nigger dick.
Alan, I think the VVV nanites would force immediate answers to questions with an objective factual answer. More nebulous ones, like “What’s the worst thing you’ve ever done,” would probably prompt, “I have to think about it a sec,” from most people, but they’d still be compelled to answer one they’d thought (and I doubt they’d be able to not think about it).
Mika, in the event of a nuclear war I will send someone for you and what’s-his-name. If three large men in chartreuse & mauve suits appear at your door and say “You have to leave now!” just do it.
I’d like to see this, if I may.
Ok, I promise. 
I was just talking to my SO the other night, and I said, “If you ever come home and tell me, ‘I have no time to explain, get in the car now!’, I would totally do it. I wouldn’t be like those women in movies that are always whining ‘What’s wrooooooooong, honey?’ and thus get killed.”* So I’d just have to remember the chartreuse suits.
*I hope I got all the punctuation right in that sentence, even if it was a run-on!
The divorce courts will be totally jammed and there won’t be any new marriages either. This seems do obvious that I am surprised it wasn’t an option.
I disagree about the marriages. People will learn not to ask certain questions. For instance, the sort of oaf who insists on a virgin bride will, after a few brutal encounters, keep his mouth shut on the issue.
Here’s a question, do we have to deliver the whole truth in the most efficient manner, or can we still be gentle? Like, does “Do you think I am wrong?” have to be answered as “Yes, I think you are totally wrong and being a jerk, too”, or can I say, “I feel you may be misguided on this one.”
Despite what some of the hippies around here seem to think, the VVV is meant to cause chaos, suffering, and pain. Why on Earth would such an easy out be allowed?
That said, I think the bluntness of the answer would depend on the emotional state of the deponent; after all, she or he is being required to speak the truth as she or he understands it. So if you genuinely and strongly believe that the interrogator is being a jackass and should be told so, you’ll be compelled to say so; that’s part of the truth as you know it. But you’d be able to soften it afterwards, if the interrogator had the sense to let you speak.
Lawyers who write wills will be busier than a one-armed wallpaper hanger, as well. There will be lots of people wanting to modify their wills to disinherit various relatives.
The unemployment rate will skyrocket, as people get fired from their jobs for not being able to get along with their bosses and co-workers.
The birth rate will fall dramatically starting nine months after the activation of the VVV. With the additional loss of population to all the nuclear wars, this is going to be a problem.
Skald, what of fiction? If an actor playing a part asks another actor a question, does the 2nd actor response in character or as himself?
Also, what of written questions? If someone writes down a question on a piece of paper, or a message board, does anyone who sees it have to response?
You could write fiction, as the VVV prevents only untruthful responses, not original compositions. But yes, actors would be screwed. Or, rather, dramatists would have to compose their scripts so that there were no questions that would force the actors out of character.
Yep. The Dope would crash in the first ten minutes, I’m sure. Y’all can all go ahead and scream “Damn you, Skald!” now if you like.
I had NOTHING to do with the universal banning incident. You have my word as a Sith Lord.
How much control does a questioner have over the questionee’s attempt to answer the question? I’m asking because I’m reading Death Note right now and the options are interesting
For example, if a person were to broadcast a question on TV, does everyone watching the broadcast respond out loud, in writing, or are they compelled to make an attempt to actually contact the person on TV and answer the question? If the broadcaster includes an email address, or a phone number, something easy, does everyone who sees it have to call in or email, or can they simply answer out load or in writing in the privacy of their own home?
Another question, how much time does the answeree have to answer the question? Let’s say a person was physically prevented from answering a question he was asked. How long does he have to wait until they can unrestrain him and he’s able to dodge the question?
Last thing, you mentioned that anyone who sees a written question or hears it is compelled to answer. But what if the question is not directed towards you? Would they still have to answer or can they ignore it?
I think you’d have to perceive the question as being aimed at you. That is, if you were watching a performance of Romeo & Juliet, then Juliet’s balcony speech wouldn’t affect you, because you are not being addressed. (Actors might be able to use this to make performances possible at all.)
I hadn’t thought about the time issue, but I’d guess that, since the VVV nanites force the [del]victim[/del] deponent to tell the truth, the deponent is going to feel a strong and rising compulsion to do so until he is able to respond.