Are there filters or monitoring for the more violent or maleficent types of things that people have a habit of gravitating towards? Depending on the number of people online and the balance, I could easily see groups jumping on and choosing the negative or harmful choice for lolz

I thought clicking "Ask a new question" then going right back into Jury Duty would give me a new question, but I landed on the same one.

I think the asker providing the two valid responses is flawed. It doesn't allow the "jury" to draw their own conclusion, or provides leading answers (one about "is it rude" to eat by themselves when they're socially exhausted in a work context -- one is "yes they would be offended", the other "no they won't be" -- well, they certainly may be but it is your right to eat alone, so the answer could have been "they may, but you need to take care of yourself").

The reality for many of these questions is pretty complex.

I'm not saying it's not worthwhile, but I'm saying forcing users to choose on some topics aren't black and white.

It's maybe worthwhile getting information on things like people who aren't knowledgeable, people who don't care or have no preference, or people who don't want to answer because the answers are skewed towards one side.

That is mostly a problem with the results page where i wanted to make a screenshot to show it off to my friends but couldn’t.

I had two huge yes/no boxes that I thought where missing an image. So I reloaded and lost my question.

- Don't force people to participate in jury duty when waiting for jury answer. Many of them will just click random answers.

- Provide "I don't know/Skip" as an answer. Otherwise the options are "Pick a random" and "Logout"

- Allow jury to write text feedback or at least give them a button saying "All provided answers are wrong / NA / Fallacy / ... "

- "your verdict is simulated by AI" if there aren't enough people logged in. Don't do that. I have no interested in that answer.

> I built JuryNow because I wanted to create a truly objective place to get outside opinions that were not from my peer group, but from 12 people in 12 different countries, different ages, professions, cultures, a truly diverse global objective jury with no algorithms.

You don't collect demographics, and couldn't verify them anyway, so this game doesn't give insight into those dynamics. And the result is not more objective than a social media consensus.

That doesn't mean it isn't fun and even maybe useful in collecting one's thoughts, so go with that.

Seems like a fun idea, if it worked at all?

Seems like a fun idea, if it worked.

Truly diverse panel? You have no idea what the diversity is. Far removed from your peer group? You have no idea. "Just a verdict"? Jury duty is not a duty to pronounce judgement. It's a duty deliberate on evidence. There's no evidence, here, and no deliberation.

This is no celebration of collective human intelligence. This is silly and cynical.

It errors out with “ Please moderate the content of your question before submitting it.”

As a follow up, I'd guide people on asking questions. More context = better answers.

For example, I joined a jury. The question was "Should I go to Belarus?" That's so vague, it doesn't even feel helpful for me to answer. I would much rather the question have said something like "I've always wanted to go to Belarus, but my rent is also due in a week. I only have enough money for one. Where should I spend my money?"

That at least gives me something to work with and weigh in on.

Is it possible that this is some form of clickjacking site?

Congratulations for a great idea and a fun game, but AFAICT there is no way to stop participants from plugging in an LLM to your site and having the LLM read questions and make decisions. For example, someone might do this to cheat their jury duty and get decisions from others without having to personally invest time and effort.

I don't know what you can do about this. Do you have any ideas?

If you’re waiting on a response there’s no way to get to the next question besides answering it.

It's not objective, because the questions are biased.

It's really just an (I assume) real-time online opinion poll with a low sample size.

After asking a question, I was 'juror' for the same question approximately 10 times in a row.

I really miss not seeing the results.

After answering several questions, I really wanted to see what the final jury decision was. I saw a question from a father asking about leaving his assets to his children. I would want to know what the other 11 random people selected (for various reasons).

Without this feature, I think I might start to lose interest because it'll start to feel like I'm clicking into the empty, voiceless void.

If the userbase becomes equally-ish distributed around the world, for many questions, this wouldn't be very useful.

Especially when you only get a yes/no answer. People can give you the same answer for opposite reasons.

Should I invite 400 people to my wedding?

12xNo

1 from countries where this is too many, 11 from countries where this is too few.

(and it depends on who is up, timezones and all)

You were hoping for a No, because you can't afford 400 guests, and now you think the world agrees with you. Wrong.

With a well-crafted question, this can be mitigated. But I doubt the average user will be willing to put the effort.

I’d also like to see such responses.

I’d also like to skip.

I’d also like to see my past questions and results, and results for at least questions I recently responded to.

for example, i got "Q: Is Luigi Mangione guilty of murdering the CEO of United Healthcare?"

Well yes, he shot the guy on camera. Due process and all of that, he's probably guilty. It's like asking is the sky blue. What's the point? That's a low quality question. Did you mean "is jury nullification a good choice" or "is what he did morally right"?

Also got asked if I ever had a physical fight with a sibling.

Well, I don't have one, so no. Perhaps not what the question was intending.