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