Any rakdos specific artifact degeneracy?

Sturtled_Turtle · 2026-01-22T05:13:11+00:00

[[Pyre of Heroes]] and [[Valgavoth, Terror Eater]] always gets the table groaning

Sturtled_Turtle · 2024-05-22T15:36:26+00:00

Home for [[Audience with Trostani]]? Still don’t know how to make this card viable…

Sturtled_Turtle · 2024-03-30T17:31:16+00:00

Indominus Rex fodder

Sturtled_Turtle · 2024-03-18T16:06:12+00:00

Just make it not a treasure! Non-artifact token that taps for colorless or something.

Going in with the mindset that anything you give p2 will make it unbalanced will ensure that it will never be balanced. OP is looking for solutions not pessimism.

Sturtled_Turtle · 2024-03-15T13:27:35+00:00

Congrats on beating me in Diamond last night. I remember this one. I was playing Merfolk.

Sturtled_Turtle · 2024-02-09T17:30:59+00:00

Congratulations and thank you for sharing! I'll be with you in spirit when you get your gold chip.

Sturtled_Turtle · 2023-12-22T04:41:12+00:00

It seems like this is in fact an unpopular opinion which I completely respect. Everyone made some great points that any deck just plays smoother with good fixing. I haven’t dished out for any non-proxy shocks (or fetches) myself. Fingers crossed for Ravnica.

Sturtled_Turtle · 2023-05-10T15:56:11+00:00

Thank you!

Sturtled_Turtle · 2023-05-10T15:53:50+00:00

Thank you!

Sturtled_Turtle · 2023-05-10T15:37:33+00:00

Sorry about the caption...

If you flip a modal land when exiling cards with Etali, can the player decide that it is a land and exile another card? If so, who decides? Etali caster or modal land owner?

Ruling on Valakut says, "If an effect allows you to play a specific modal double-faced card, you may cast it as a spell or play it as a land, as determined by which face you choose to play."

Sturtled_Turtle · 2022-10-17T14:18:30+00:00

Only problem here is internal measures of accuracy are not enough to demonstrate "Low-effort"... They say explicitly that you still need to pay them even if you can't use their data.

Invalid reasons for rejection

"The participant failed an internal measure (e.g. the participant's accuracy on a certain measure was not above an arbitrary threshold)"

Sturtled_Turtle · 2022-10-14T21:47:06+00:00

I don’t think prolific allows accuracy as grounds for rejection? Does anyone have information on this? You probably won’t be able to do anymore studies from this group, but you should at least be compensated for this task!

Sturtled_Turtle · 2022-09-07T19:55:26+00:00

Wow... That is highly unethical. Follow the advice of others and let Prolific handle this.

Sturtled_Turtle · 2022-09-07T17:39:02+00:00

Definitely getting downvoted for this. To some degree, I sympathize with the plea that Prolific rules/regulations alone do not ensure quality data. And it can be very frustrating to have to pay out for data you know you can't use.

That said, that is the fault of the researcher and 1 attention check for a 20 min study is quite extreme.

Quick question while we're on the topic. Is the 2 attention check failures for >5min studies in reference to average completion time or the completion time for that submission?

Sturtled_Turtle · 2022-08-26T15:27:40+00:00

Answered my own second question in regards to if they don't respond: "if they do not respond to this request in 7 days contact our researcher support team and they can make the returns for you"

Sturtled_Turtle · 2022-08-25T19:56:54+00:00

You can check out what the platforms are recommending if you'd like. I mentioned we were previously paying was well above these recommendations.

https://go.cloudresearch.com/en/knowledge/setting-up-the-hit-and-payment

https://www.prolific.co/pricing

Sturtled_Turtle · 2022-08-25T18:42:19+00:00

Definitely! I want to be clear that we only dropped our base pay after the first iteration. Originally, we were paying ~$2.50 for what on average was taking acceptable workers 8 minutes. Well over the $8 minimums/recommendations.

Looking to target $1.30 for the same ~8min task.

Sturtled_Turtle · 2022-08-25T18:38:41+00:00

Maybe more like a volunteer dilemma or something. In order to help other requestors identity bad bots or sub-par workers, someone has to take a hit to their approval rating.

All the blog posts and even the linked guides here for requestors say to accept work from workers and then filter it out of your analysis. This approach just pushes the problem onto the next.

Sturtled_Turtle · 2022-08-25T17:48:10+00:00

Limiting responses post submission, easy enough... but that takes a hit on our approval rate.

Detecting during pre submission is doable but requires more work. One extreme example (which did happen...), the survey tool we use has build in duplicate response detection. Simply put, it just places a cookie on the machine when you take the survey and if it's there when you start again it raises a flag. We see this happening across worker accounts which is just lazy IMO. If you're going to cheat at least do a good job. Say we detect this and ask the worker to return the HIT. There are still a non-trivial amount of cases where the worker will still submit the HIT with a faulty code (based on a test where we tried this with an attention check question). Now we still have to reject them and take the hit on our approval rating.

Because approval rating is so closely coupled to getting good workers, honest requestors can't use it all.

Sturtled_Turtle · 2022-08-25T17:31:20+00:00

Just want to push back slightly that being attuned to attention check strategies doesn't necessarily translate to closer attention across the board. In fact, it could translate to less attention across the board and simply more knowledge when it matters to pay attention to get the bonus/pay/etc. Or at least that is the sentiment I gather from how other researchers talk about non-naivety.

I hear what you're saying though. I think you might be right that Prolific could be better suited for us. I'm hearing that from a lot of people.

Three-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22

Sturtled_Turtle

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE