**JuryNow **is a new browser-based game where you ask a yes/no (or Option 1/2) question and get a verdict from 12 strangers around the world in 3 minutes. While you wait, you do 3 minutes of JuryDuty answering other people’s questions. There are comments or discussions, just clean, human decisions.
You can ask a moral dilemma, a big life decision, a workplace problem, or a get a global objective opinion on a family argument, take a mini political poll in real time, or just ask a trivial question. It’s also great for fashion choices because you can upload 2 images.
It’s fast, social but anonymous, and a little addictive.
⚠️ Since it just launched, if there aren’t 13 players online, the verdict is temporarily simulated which is needed to demonstarate teh how the 3-minute system works. It’s MVP stage, so please help spread the word if you like the concept.
Try it: https://www.jurynow.app/
No ads, no tracking, just pure opinion gameplay. Would love to hear what you think.
I don’t even understand what you’re trying to ask here
Sorry! Not very clear!! What I mean is that if you had asked an actual question - and had received a live Jury verdict - would you feel less let down?
I think that the thing that let them down was that they didn’t actually get to participate in any discussion or consensus-building. I think that the ideal scenario to solve this issue is a quick chatroom amongst simultaneous players, in which topics for discussion are briefly discussed for a few minutes, then voted on, like a real jury. It could include deliberation, but the question writer would only see the verdict. I will tell you that I would personally play this if it followed this method:
Make it fewer players per question (like 5 or 7), so that it doesn’t take an hour. Each submits a question. Make it so that, while your question is being considered, you are in another jury room deliberating on another question. Make deliberations timed (say, 3-5 minutes per question), so that no one is in a lobby waiting to serve on a jury for too long. Then, after serving on a number of juries equal to the number of jurors (5-7), they can view their verdict. This would allow for the deliberation these people are suggesting.
This was what I understood stamets to mean as well. I thought it was pretty obvious. I had the same thought opening it. Still cool though.