Hey guys,
Last weekend in the pub I got the chance to perform something for my cousin and
her friend,i had absolutely no props on me so I decided to perform ring of truth.
As I was performing it people started to gather which was great until it went wrong!!
I did everything properly and so did my cousin and her friend but it still didn't work,
I was wondering has this ever happened to anyone before?

If you and both of your participants did everything correctly, then I don't understand how this could have not worked. Are you sure that your nerves didn't get in the way and you maybe just thought everything went as it should have?

-rob

There is obviously a misunderstanding of the effect and methodology.
I would suggest going back to the source of which you learned the routine from, and study it some more.

Tony

Well something must have gone wrong - Either you haven't performed it for a while and forgot exactly how it goes or those taking part misunderstood something. (Very likely unless you spell it out to them in black and white)

Run through it now with yourself and see if it works out. If it doesn't, then time to refresh what to do.

I like this effect a lot and in the unlikely event of me not having anything on me and want a one-piece wonder I usually do it. Can be done with any other object as well.

He said it was in "the pub"... which means misunderstandings entirely possible!

I've been there and done that! - Nothing all evening then everyone turns up and wants the performing monkey to perform when he can't even form a sentence! (when out socially I might add as I don't drink at all when professionally booked - did that a few times when I first started and it doesn't help at all!

It's not as impromptu as it would seem. If the conditions are right (i.e. not too noisy, everyone can easily understand what is to be done, both are vaguely intelligent) then it works.

Personally I find it too linguistically fiddly. Better off doing other versions.

Same here. One has to be careful when handing out the instructions. However, if the performer is paying attention and knows the routine inside, outside, top, bottom and dead center, then there is a certain point when they will notice something has gone awry.

Rick Maue has a version called "Truth of the Relic". It is not as "instruction" heavy as "Ring of Truth". Of course, Ring of truth does take the effect a bit further then truth of the relic.

That's the truth

As already stated, if everything was done right then it cannot go wrong.

Meaning
a) everything was not explained right
b) you did not do your bit properly
c) someone misunderstood your instruction
d) they decided to mess with you

I find that (c) is by far the most common problem. It is resolved by letting them know it is tougher to lie than tell the truth so ask that whatever they are to pause and gather their thoughts, so they can answer in character before they answer. You do not have to make the instructions that explicit of course.

Anthony

Anthony

They couldn't follow directions, I have had fully sober individuals screw this up, leave alone thosethat have been drinking for awhile, you need to be prepared with an out when this happens

Alcohol definitely affects the person's comprehending of the instructions. I also agree that there should also be an out, which is pretty easy to fashion.

When we do an effect with relatively complicated instructions for layman, if it goes wrong, it's 99,9% our fault not the spectator's. We did not give clear instructions.

Cheers
Pourang

The other place it could have gone wrong is in the discerning of the answers. It is easy to get the two answers backwards if you aren't paying attention or have a cranium vapor lock.

Indeed, having it well rehearsed and clearer than clear in your own head forwards and backwards before you even think about performing it, is a must.

Part of that rehearsal should include learning how to phrase the instructions so that they are as clear as possible with no ambiguity. Delivered in a warm and friendly way and not talking down to them like they are at school. Confirm that they fully understand what you want them to do.

Leave the flowery psychobabble at the start and end as it will just confuse when giving instructions.

Without clear instructions, you don't have a routine.

Just get Prevaricator and learn to do it for real...

The idea here is to be helpful to the OP not boost your own ego.

If that's the best you can post in almost a year, I won't be viewing your other posts.

That is it in a nut shell, clear and concise instructions. The need to rehearse before you perform is paramount. Even if one has performed the effect a million times, a sincere run through of the routine puts it fresh in the mind and sharpens it so that should anything go suddenly South one can hopefully catch it and employ the out. Which brings up another point, one should always practice the out.

Shrubsole,
this has nothing to do with my ego. I'm sorry if I came across as an arrogant dick - English is not my native language and it's hard for me to evaluate how what I say sounds to a native speaker.
I was serious about Prevaricator, though. The Prevaricator DVD offers loads of techniques, subtleties, outs etc. and will be valuable to anyone interested in the which-hand-effect / ring of truth. Even if you decide to stick with the traditional linguistic method, you can still use the Prevaricator-techniques to double-check your results...

All the best,

Florian

This problem has been discussed before. I have had people answer that second ROT question wrong in particular. First of all you need to get someone intelligent AND into the routine. If someone appears to be just along for the ride, they are not going put enough mental effort into answering that second question right because it requires two steps to answer correctly if the person is a liar 1) to figure out the proper answer to the question being asked. And 2) to alter that answer if necessary to answer in character: liar. That is why it usually is the liar that will get it wrong.
A way I use to help out that liar is to work the participants through both of these steps. Tell them the second question to be asked, but do not have them answer out loud yet. I won't expose the second question but say it is, "Does that person have the duck?" You might say, "I am now going to ask each of you if the other person has the duck. You know if the other person has it or not, so you will answer YES or NO. But if he does have it and you are lying you would say NO, of course, and if he does not have it and you are lying you will say YES."

I add by way of justification, "I need you to get the answer ready because if I ask you a simple YES or NO question like that and you hesitate even for a split second in your answer so that you can think about it, I and everybody else will know that you are lying and it makes it way too easy."

The above has them get the answer ready instead of putting them on the spot, has think about who has it (or think about the proper answer to whatever question), then tells them exactly how to answer that question if they are supposed to be lying, which is where most of the errors come from from my experience. I still am not crazy about that second ROT question, but the above seemed to cut down on incorrect answers when I was doing ROT. I do other variations now.

Hope this helps