81–90 of 127 posts
I'm using Firefox on Android. For me, it showed a question and two answers, but all attempts to select an answer failed.
I'm using Firefox on Android. For me, it showed a question and two answers, but all attempts to select an answer failed.
For Jury, I would give a "skip question" option. I found one relating to Christianity that I had _no_ idea what the "correct" answer would be based on the two options. 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 conclu…
Yes, skip would be good, but I'd also advocate an option like "I reject the premise of the question". 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 atte…
For Jury, I would give a "skip question" option. I found one relating to Christianity that I had _no_ idea what the "correct" answer would be based on the two options. 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 conclu…
Skipping unanswerable questions would be good for everyone. Any answer would be misleading. 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 “…
For Jury, I would give a "skip question" option. I found one relating to Christianity that I had _no_ idea what the "correct" answer would be based on the two options. 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 conclu…
Neat concept! Although I was a bit surprised at the AI stand-in's finding. I posed the silly argument that "My neighbor's dog refuses to speak French" with the options "Neighbor is culpable" and "I am clearly an idiot": The final decision was 7/5 in my favor! But seriously, this really is a great idea IMO. The jury-duty-while-you-wait feature also seems like a fair trade-off.
Thanks SO much for trying! Honestly, interacting with real people who have tried my game after thinking about it non stop for 16 years is truly exciting! Indeed, the AI part is necessary (well I don't want to say evil but...) in order to show off he game as it will be, and after posting it on Reddit last week, it was working like a dream with real live juries answering! My dream jury will be age 16 - 99, from every c…
This indeed sounds fishy.
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.