| name | Forbidden vocabulary |
|---|---|
| slug | forbidden-words |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| rubric_version | v1.0 |
| author | TIGRIS |
| created | 2026-04-19 |
| updated | 2026-04-19 |
Vagueness-smuggling words. A claim that uses one of these without a specific, axis-grounded replacement fails review.
| Don't say | Reason | Say instead (examples) |
|---|---|---|
| "fun" | Non-diagnostic. Fun is the output, not a quality to evaluate directly. | "Decision density at 4p rewards the Engine-Builder lens"; "Interaction spikes during catastrophes." |
| "well-designed" | Agreement dressed as evaluation. | "Elegant per axis 1 — 3 rules produce 6 distinct strategies." |
| "great game" | Ditto. | "Knizia-lens: win at all counts. Lacerda-lens: fail at 2p (insufficient system gearing)." |
| "solid" | Empty praise. | "Variance calibration scored 7.1 — luck front-loaded, skill dominates second half." |
| "works well" | Doesn't name what works. | "The auction mechanism resolves each turn in under 90 seconds across all counts (pacing axis ≥ 8)." |
| "polished" | Production, not design. | Use 'polished' only about physical production quality; never about mechanics. |
| "intuitive" | Unless measured against Fresh-Face lens. | "Fresh-Face lens teaches in 8 minutes — teachability ≥ 8." |
- "Euro vs Ameritrash" as an evaluation frame. We evaluate the game against its own ambition, not against tradition stereotypes.
- "Unbalanced" without naming (a) the specific dominant strategy, (b) the player count where it emerges, (c) the minimum turn at which it becomes inevitable.
- "Too complex" without naming the teachability score and comparing to stated target audience.
- "Too simple" without naming the decision-density score and the replayability score.
- "Well/badly scaled" without naming which player count breaks and which axis drops.
Every claim in a review or panel document must specify:
- Which rubric axis (§6 of spec). "Knizia notes a decision-density issue" beats "Knizia thinks the game is too simple."
- Which persona or lens made the call. "The Interactionist lens scores 3.2 on interaction" beats "players will feel this is solitaire."
- Which player count or game-state triggered the observation. "At 4p after turn 5, the leader enters a runaway state" beats "there's a runaway-leader problem."
If a reviewer submits a panel document that uses banned vocabulary without the required grounding, the review goes back for revision. The reviewer keeps their voice; they just have to name the axis.
This isn't pedantry. It's how the rubric gets better — only precise critiques can cluster into innovations.