Why I Built a Game Where 12 Strangers Decide Your Fate in 3 Minutes
What if the internet were built for empathy, not algorithms?
For 16 years, I thought about a simple question:
What if you could summon a 12-person jury 24/7 from your phone to help you make a decision?
Not a chatbot. Not a forum with trolls. Not a group of friends with bias. Not your peer group.
A real jury. Twelve strangers. Anonymous. Diverse.
No commentary. Just a verdict.
And what if that could happen in 3 minutes?
That’s what I built: JuryNow. It’s a browser-based social game that lets you ask any yes/no or binary question, and instantly get a verdict from 12 real people. While you're waiting for your answer, you serve Jury Duty and vote on others’ questions.
It’s fast, anonymous, and human.
And, unlike almost everything else online today… It’s not powered by AI.
The Spark: King Solomon and a Seat on the Tube
King Solomon was famous for giving exceptionally wise, brilliant judgments for his people’s problems - but he was appalling for his own life decisions. ‘Solomon’s Paradox’ has been tested worldwide by psychology departments, where people will use more empathy and objectivity for random strangers than for their own dilemmas.
Sixteen years ago, a friend of mine died suddenly, leaving behind her husband and three young kids. He was overwhelmed with decisions that he had to take alone, some big, like “Should I take a year off work and move to the country?“ and some small, like “Ponytail or Hairband for my small daughter?”
And I thought: What if there were 12 people, from anywhere in the world, he could ask at any time and receive an immediate answer?
At the same time, sitting on the London Underground, staring at two rows of six people. 12 Different ages. 12 different backgrounds, countries, and cultural backgrounds. A perfect 12-person diverse jury.
How It Works (and Why It’s Fun)
Ask a question in 80 words or fewer. Upload 2 photos if you want.
Example:
“My brother is getting married for the third time. I went to the other two. This one’s abroad and we have no parents. Do I have to go?”
While you wait for your verdict, you’re dropped into Jury Duty. You answer other people’s questions, like:
“Do you avoid walking under ladders even if it looks completely stable?”
Or:
“Should I take away my father’s car keys? He is 86 and had two near accidents this month.”
Then your verdict arrives in 3 minutes. Twelve strangers. Two options. No commentary, no debate. Just numbers.
It’s weirdly addictive, meaningful, and fun.
The Reddit Test (aka: My Accidental Viral Launch)
I posted JuryNow to r/gamedev with zero expectations.
Within 24 hours, the site had over 120,000 views and a 92% approval rating.
Comments poured in:
“My girlfriend and I can finally stop arguing—‘To the Jury!’”
“A breath of fresh air in the AI smog.”
“This is the coolest idea I’ve heard in a while. Please make an app!”
Why no AI?
Because I think we still want real judgment, not simulated empathy.
And I believe people, when anonymous and focused, can be more fair than we give them credit for.
We all suffer from Solomon’s Paradox: we give better advice to others than ourselves. And many of us suffer from decision paralysis from time to time.
JuryNow just makes that externalized wisdom scalable.
What Happens Now?
JuryNow is live. It works and had 12,000 page views on Saturday.
But it only works with people. If the number of players falls below 13 at any given time, verdicts will be simulated by AI. This is a necessary temporary function as it’s an MVP, and the MVP needs to demonstrate verdicts coming through in 3 minutes.
The goal is to have regular players from around the world across different time zones, and as soon as that happens, I will joyfully dismantle this function!
If you want to see what the internet was meant to do, connect strangers in meaningful ways.
Ask something real. Or help someone decide.
Try it now (if you are a troll, please skip this bit)