"okay, but you canobjectively evaluate itbased on thepercentage ofreaders willing to givepositive feedback""okay, but authorswould never abuse itto create an unequalsituation by usingvarying levels ofaggressive tactics tocoerce feedback""okay, but RRdoesn't actuallytry to providelists not basedon ratings""you cangive idealpersonalisedsuggestions""everyone havingless negativeratings wouldimproveeveryone'srankings""giving readersreading suggestionsirrespective of otherreaders opinionsdoes not result in aworse experience"“reminding readersto rate or reviewwould lead to anobjectively betterrating system""there is onlybias whentalking about0.5 starratings""okay, but havingless negativeratings wouldmake it so usersgive more storiesa chance""ratings under 4stars mean deathbecause that'swhat the usersdecided to drawthe line at""we needmore fivestarratings""negativefeedback isinherentlybad""you can giveidealpersonalisedsuggestionswithout ratings""you can evaluatesubjectivequality/suitabilitybased only onpositive 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""okay, but it'd betrivial to weighratings based onat least the first10 chapterreads""it's RR's faultthat gettingtraction as anew author ishard""the rating systembehaves differentlyfrom a binaryrating systemmathematically""removingratingscompletely isbeneficial toreaders""okay, but thereis only biaswhen talkingabout ratingsless than 3stars""removingratingscompletely isbeneficial toauthors""ratingsaffectvisibility onall lists""having a lowaverage ratingmeans readersdismiss my novelthen they go dosomething else otherthan reading""a 0.5 starrating isneverjustifiable""it is a badthing thathigher rankedfictions getmore views"“okay, but once it'simplemented, it'd bea foolproof way toprevent drive-byratings. Users wouldabsolutely not dotheir best to bypassit""the number ofchapters read islinearlyproportional withhow well-formed areaders opinion is""okay, but you canobjectively evaluate itbased on thepercentage ofreaders willing to givepositive feedback""okay, but authorswould never abuse itto create an unequalsituation by usingvarying levels ofaggressive tactics tocoerce feedback""okay, but RRdoesn't actuallytry to providelists not basedon ratings""you cangive idealpersonalisedsuggestions""everyone havingless negativeratings wouldimproveeveryone'srankings""giving readersreading suggestionsirrespective of otherreaders opinionsdoes not result in aworse experience"“reminding readersto rate or reviewwould lead to anobjectively betterrating system""there is onlybias whentalking about0.5 starratings""okay, but havingless negativeratings wouldmake it so usersgive more storiesa chance""ratings under 4stars mean deathbecause that'swhat the usersdecided to drawthe line at""we needmore fivestarratings""negativefeedback isinherentlybad""you can giveidealpersonalisedsuggestionswithout ratings""you can evaluatesubjectivequality/suitabilitybased only onpositive 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""okay, but it'd betrivial to weighratings based onat least the first10 chapterreads""it's RR's faultthat gettingtraction as anew author ishard""the rating systembehaves differentlyfrom a binaryrating systemmathematically""removingratingscompletely isbeneficial toreaders""okay, but thereis only biaswhen talkingabout ratingsless than 3stars""removingratingscompletely isbeneficial toauthors""ratingsaffectvisibility onall lists""having a lowaverage ratingmeans readersdismiss my novelthen they go dosomething else otherthan reading""a 0.5 starrating isneverjustifiable""it is a badthing thathigher rankedfictions getmore views"“okay, but once it'simplemented, it'd bea foolproof way toprevent drive-byratings. Users wouldabsolutely not dotheir best to bypassit""the number ofchapters read islinearlyproportional withhow well-formed areaders opinion is"

Royal Road Review Rationales - 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
27
  1. "okay, but you can objectively evaluate it based on the percentage of readers willing to give positive feedback"
  2. "okay, but authors would never abuse it to create an unequal situation by using varying levels of aggressive tactics to coerce feedback"
  3. "okay, but RR doesn't actually try to provide lists not based on ratings"
  4. "you can give ideal personalised suggestions"
  5. "everyone having less negative ratings would improve everyone's rankings"
  6. "giving readers reading suggestions irrespective of other readers opinions does not result in a worse experience"
  7. “reminding readers to rate or review would lead to an objectively better rating system"
  8. "there is only bias when talking about 0.5 star ratings"
  9. "okay, but having less negative ratings would make it so users give more stories a chance"
  10. "ratings under 4 stars mean death because that's what the users decided to draw the line at"
  11. "we need more five star ratings"
  12. "negative feedback is inherently bad"
  13. "you can give ideal personalised suggestions without ratings"
  14. "you can evaluate subjective quality/suitability based only on positive feedback"
  15. "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"
  16. "okay, but it'd be trivial to weigh ratings based on at least the first 10 chapter reads"
  17. "it's RR's fault that getting traction as a new author is hard"
  18. "the rating system behaves differently from a binary rating system mathematically"
  19. "removing ratings completely is beneficial to readers"
  20. "okay, but there is only bias when talking about ratings less than 3 stars"
  21. "removing ratings completely is beneficial to authors"
  22. "ratings affect visibility on all lists"
  23. "having a low average rating means readers dismiss my novel then they go do something else other than reading"
  24. "a 0.5 star rating is never justifiable"
  25. "it is a bad thing that higher ranked fictions get more views"
  26. “okay, but once it's implemented, it'd be a foolproof way to prevent drive-by ratings. Users would absolutely not do their best to bypass it"
  27. "the number of chapters read is linearly proportional with how well-formed a readers opinion is"