oh! I'm sorry you say that because I genuinely want to hear every word of feedback! I have had the idea fo 16 years and only just worked out how to build an app with no code in the past year...It's taken me forever to produce it, so i really do want to hear your thoughts! (be gentle, I'm nearly a pensioner! -)

I was taught that if you don't have anything nice to say then you shouldn't say it. That isn't a lesson that I always follow, but it is one that I want to follow here. That's more what I meant on the no, you don't.

I have no constructive feedback that I can provide you at this time and I don't want to be actively cruel. One of my criticisms is completely out of your hands because it is the questions being asked at this time. But other things... I have no idea or alternative I can provide for things I do not like. What I thought this was is also so very different from what it is that there's no point in discussing that because it would be like trying to drive a Buick the next star system over, not the tool for the job. Due to this, I don't want to just list things that I dislike and be discouraging.

But I wish you best of luck.

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?

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?

**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 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.

Genuine question. Why is this a game? Don't the players just answer questions?

That's a point that my daughter has also asked because she says there are no winners therefore it can't be a game! It's a game mainly because it's fun when you receive your verdict knowing that 12 random people from anywhere in the world have just answered your question - whether it's what shirt looks best or whether to move house. It's also a game because there is a subtle team at play which you will never know...while playing JuryDuty you are answering with 11 other anonymous team members. It's a more of a game when you are actually asking a question (not just trying the JuryDuty trial round - that's more to get an idea of the game). Also, this is just the MVP, but the real model will be more "gamification" with User Stats, and rewards for playing streaks or contributing to different verdicts etc....Have I changed your mind a teensy bit? I can't tell you HOW incredibly helpful it is to get feedback! and I'm genuinely grateful for you playing & taking time to comment back!! Thank you Konrad!

I see. So it's like "Ask a friend" of anything. It's a useful application though, if the responses come quick, with more users joining of course. Say, I got two outfits to wear and I want opinions. If users disclose their nationality, occupation, age group and gender, I'd want to know the responses come from say, all male, then I know people of my gender that have such and such jobs wear similarly so I'll be more confident in choosing the outfit. I still don't think it's a game. You can make it fun to help out others by including daily quest, points system etc. Otherwise, I don't know why I would want to spend my free time on others.

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.