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

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