“reminding readersto rate or reviewwould lead to anobjectively betterrating system""giving readersreading suggestionsirrespective of otherreaders opinionsdoes not result in aworse experience""having a lowaverage ratingmeans readersdismiss my novelthen they go dosomething else otherthan reading""okay, but havingless negativeratings wouldmake it so usersgive more storiesa chance""okay, but RRdoesn't actuallytry to providelists not basedon ratings""the rating systembehaves differentlyfrom a binaryrating systemmathematically""removingratingscompletely isbeneficial toreaders""it's RR's faultthat gettingtraction as anew author ishard""okay, but you canobjectively evaluate itbased on thepercentage ofreaders willing to givepositive feedback""you can giveidealpersonalisedsuggestionswithout ratings""ratings under 4stars mean deathbecause that'swhat the usersdecided to drawthe line at""it is a badthing thathigher rankedfictions getmore views""negativefeedback isinherentlybad""there is onlybias whentalking about0.5 starratings""ratingsaffectvisibility onall lists""the number ofchapters read islinearlyproportional withhow well-formed areaders opinion is""we needmore fivestarratings""a 0.5 starrating isneverjustifiable""okay, but thereis only biaswhen talkingabout ratingsless than 3stars""you cangive idealpersonalisedsuggestions""removingratingscompletely isbeneficial toauthors""everyone havingless negativeratings wouldimproveeveryone'srankings""okay, but authorswould never abuse itto create an unequalsituation by usingvarying levels ofaggressive tactics tocoerce feedback""what do you meanreaders would justraise the bar? That'sabsolutely not how itworks, that's how whyusers draw the line atthe neutral unbiasedmean of 2.75 stars""you can evaluatesubjectivequality/suitabilitybased only onpositive feedback"Free!“reminding readersto rate or reviewwould lead to anobjectively betterrating system""giving readersreading suggestionsirrespective of otherreaders opinionsdoes not result in aworse experience""having a lowaverage ratingmeans readersdismiss my novelthen they go dosomething else otherthan reading""okay, but havingless negativeratings wouldmake it so usersgive more storiesa chance""okay, but RRdoesn't actuallytry to providelists not basedon ratings""the rating systembehaves differentlyfrom a binaryrating systemmathematically""removingratingscompletely isbeneficial toreaders""it's RR's faultthat gettingtraction as anew author ishard""okay, but you canobjectively evaluate itbased on thepercentage ofreaders willing to givepositive feedback""you can giveidealpersonalisedsuggestionswithout ratings""ratings under 4stars mean deathbecause that'swhat the usersdecided to drawthe line at""it is a badthing thathigher rankedfictions getmore views""negativefeedback isinherentlybad""there is onlybias whentalking about0.5 starratings""ratingsaffectvisibility onall lists""the number ofchapters read islinearlyproportional withhow well-formed areaders opinion is""we needmore fivestarratings""a 0.5 starrating isneverjustifiable""okay, but thereis only biaswhen talkingabout ratingsless than 3stars""you cangive idealpersonalisedsuggestions""removingratingscompletely isbeneficial toauthors""everyone havingless negativeratings wouldimproveeveryone'srankings""okay, but authorswould never abuse itto create an unequalsituation by usingvarying levels ofaggressive tactics tocoerce feedback""what do you meanreaders would justraise the bar? That'sabsolutely not how itworks, that's how whyusers draw the line atthe neutral unbiasedmean of 2.75 stars""you can evaluatesubjectivequality/suitabilitybased only onpositive feedback"Free!

Royal Road Review Rationality - Call List

(Print) Use this randomly generated list as your call list when playing the game. There is no need to say the BINGO column name. Place some kind of mark (like an X, a checkmark, a dot, tally mark, etc) on each cell as you announce it, to keep track. You can also cut out each item, place them in a bag and pull words from the bag.


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
  1. “reminding readers to rate or review would lead to an objectively better rating system"
  2. "giving readers reading suggestions irrespective of other readers opinions does not result in a worse experience"
  3. "having a low average rating means readers dismiss my novel then they go do something else other than reading"
  4. "okay, but having less negative ratings would make it so users give more stories a chance"
  5. "okay, but RR doesn't actually try to provide lists not based on ratings"
  6. "the rating system behaves differently from a binary rating system mathematically"
  7. "removing ratings completely is beneficial to readers"
  8. "it's RR's fault that getting traction as a new author is hard"
  9. "okay, but you can objectively evaluate it based on the percentage of readers willing to give positive feedback"
  10. "you can give ideal personalised suggestions without ratings"
  11. "ratings under 4 stars mean death because that's what the users decided to draw the line at"
  12. "it is a bad thing that higher ranked fictions get more views"
  13. "negative feedback is inherently bad"
  14. "there is only bias when talking about 0.5 star ratings"
  15. "ratings affect visibility on all lists"
  16. "the number of chapters read is linearly proportional with how well-formed a readers opinion is"
  17. "we need more five star ratings"
  18. "a 0.5 star rating is never justifiable"
  19. "okay, but there is only bias when talking about ratings less than 3 stars"
  20. "you can give ideal personalised suggestions"
  21. "removing ratings completely is beneficial to authors"
  22. "everyone having less negative ratings would improve everyone's rankings"
  23. "okay, but authors would never abuse it to create an unequal situation by using varying levels of aggressive tactics to coerce feedback"
  24. "what do you mean readers would just raise the bar? That's absolutely not how it works, that's how why users draw the line at the neutral unbiased mean of 2.75 stars"
  25. "you can evaluate subjective quality/suitability based only on positive feedback"
  26. Free!