Comment on New Game Concept: JuryNow – Get a Verdict from 12 Real People in 3 Minutes

• Stamets@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I don’t even understand what you’re trying to ask here

  Now you have played, and assuming it was a live jury of 12 judging your question - whether it’s what shirt to wear, or whether to take a 6 month job in Antarctica (my nephew took a 2.5yr one!!) would you be less let down?

  source

  • JuryNow@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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?

    source

    • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I think that the thing that let them down was that they didn’t actually get to participate in any discussion or consensus a 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.

      source

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        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.

        source