Bubble introduces a new way to build a web application. It’s a no-code point-and-click programming tool. Bubble hosts all applications on its cloud platform.
**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.
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?
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
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.