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").
But answer choices should not be qualified by anything, because that systematically creates unanswerable regions.
There should be Context and Question, narrowed down any way the questioner wants. Then just “Yes” or “No” without qualification.
That is what a jury does.
Or: allow answer qualifications, followed by an automatic “None of the above”.
Anyone getting a lot of the latter is getting accurate feedback that the choices they posted were too narrow.
Without either fix, the basic logic of the utility will often be broken. Maybe both? Allow questions to be yes/no, or n choices with NOTA.
I disagree with this. The purpose of the website is to provide answers. If you let people skip questions, you can't guarantee that any given question will ever be answered.
The whole concept here is that you aren't asking people who hold particular credentials. You, Nevermark, should provide your take, regardless of whether you feel it's valid.
However, I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the two answer options are both specified by the user. They should be limited to "yes" or "no", with the meaning of that supplied by the question.
You can click a choice you don’t agree with, or the other choice you don’t agree with. Neither choice is a service to anyone.
That is the problem of the current site in a nutshell.
If these JuryNow questions are just a snap judgement on a one-shot question, with no opportunity for depth or deliberation between members, then I can see all sorts of potential problems, including the one you pointed out. The person asking the question can also load it in such a way that it leans towards their chosen answer (somewhat like loaded surveys with leading questions). I can certainly see it being used that way in toxic online debates, like a cheap mini survey that gives credence to some opinion. Aren't Reddit "CMV" and "AITA" even a little better since the jury can deliberate with each other online, as would happen in a real case?
And you're right, typically an expert would be excused, but you would also have the opportunity to learn what the issue is about to make an 'informed' choice, which in one particular case I could not.
In legal contexts yes-or-no answers can work because the case can in theory be boiled down to guilty or not. If there is any flaw with the case, the answer should be not guilty.
But let's take the "do I have a moral duty to..." questions used as examples here for contrast. I'd argue you never had a moral duty to attend your sibling's wedding to begin with. But because the question was asked with a weird modifier like "even if it's their 3rd wedding", any answer you give will be inadequate and will just serve to reinforce the flawed premise. Skipping is not enough in my opinion, because even if communicated to the question asker, it doesn't make it clear whether there as an issue on the answerer's side ("I don't know" / "don't feel qualified") or with the question itself.
Might also report skip rate to question asker.
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 I'm not logged in I should be able to get a unique identifier that let's me go back to a question and see the results.
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.
As with most things like this, you get out what you put in. Ask a biased question, and get a biased answer. At some point, the responsibility has to lie with the user that if they want something like this to be interesting and unbiased, they need to think about ways to use it to accomplish that.
Like, someone comes with a problem, great. They suggest 2 options. Lets assume one is super biased. The asker is just fishing for compliments. The jury decides on a third option of 'No, actually, your dilemma is terrible, we need to re-word this'
Then you get some people to recraft answers for it. One person gets to craft one answer, another the other answer. Then a third person to adjudicate that both are acceptable. Then it goes to the jury.
Annnnnnd like the game 'Werewolf', we're expanding this to have all kinds of fun little jobs. Because of course we're going to need a bailiff, and a court reporter, and a stenographer, etc.
For getting this off the ground, yeah, there needs to be a 'send this back' button. But once it does get going, then more fun little jobs will be good to have as updates to keep people interested.
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.
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.
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
Is it possible that this is some form of clickjacking site?
And when asking a question, it just keeps telling me to "moderate the question".
My question isn't profane or controversial, so I don't understand what I'm being asked to do.
cr34t1v3ly
f0rm4tt1ng
my
questions
> 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.
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.
- 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.
It errors out with “ Please moderate the content of your question before submitting it.”
I rephrased the question as:
> Should driving licenses be available regardless of age?
> A: Yes, anyone who can pass the test can drive.
> B: No, only adults who pass a test should drive.
Option B won 10-2.
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?
Would rather eat poo that tastes exactly like chocolate, or poo that tastes exactly like poo?
If you’re waiting on a response there’s no way to get to the next question besides answering it.
I had no way to answer a particular question (too little information) so I reported it but ... I was still stuck on that question, seemingly forever.
I would suggest two improvements:
1) "report question" workflow should have a text input where the reporter describes why they are reporting the question.
2) "report question" should proceed to the next question.
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.
Whether or not that is a good system is another question.
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.
Seems like a fun idea, if it worked at all?
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.
So whoever was picking up skateboarding again in their 30s, but just suffered a hip injury after a fall. I voted that it is time for you to give up like four times. (Which i stand by as an opinion, but perhaps I shouldn’t be so overrepresented in your jury?)
I had two huge yes/no boxes that I thought where missing an image. So I reloaded and lost my question.
And over. There seems to be something amiss in the question pipeline.
I get why you decided not to include commentary, but I think in some cases it would be useful. For example, if I have a moral dilemma, I might be interested in the moral framework used by each juror; if a juror makes a judgment based on a moral framework I disagree with (or, worse, find reprehensible), I might discard some responses and come up with a different verdict. But it would take a lot more time for a juror to write down a rationale than just picking from two options, so that would make JuryDuty more onerous, and it would take longer than 3 minutes for people to get their responses.
I tried JuryDuty and the first question was just "Israel or Palestine?" And... ooof... there is no way to boil that down to a binary decision. I am frankly not interested in choosing either one over the other without any ability to provide commentary or nuance.
This indeed sounds fishy.
People can be trolling. That is the kind of over the top, obviously silly question where I personally might also answer a silly answer. And out of those two the "Neighbor is culpable" is sillyier and funnier.
Seems like a fun idea, if it worked.
Having strangers pick a binary choice with zero explanation or chance to provide context doesn't sound useful nor fun for neither the questioner nor the "jury".
You also have no way of ensuring diversity and goodwill of the people answering.
It seems like jumping on the trend of oversimplification for the sake of it. Do we really need to turn forums/Reddit intova Tinder-like yes/no experience?
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.