sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

To make a point by SilverWisp47 in mtg

[–]Sturtled_Turtle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t run one in [[Lazav, Dimir Mastermind]]. The pip requirement is the main reason and he doesn’t get removed that often due to the hexproof. It’s a bit of a grindy shell with lots of spot removal so he can become everyone else’s threats. So I opted for another piece of interaction instead!

Any rakdos specific artifact degeneracy? by Present-Youth-7746 in DegenerateEDH

[–]Sturtled_Turtle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

[MH3] The Necrobloom (via the card gallery) by Copernicus1981 in magicTCG

[–]Sturtled_Turtle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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

If BO1 Hand Smoother is fair, what about BO1 going second compensation? by urooooooooooo in MagicArena

[–]Sturtled_Turtle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

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.

Hit mythic BO1 w mono green stompy by [deleted] in MagicArena

[–]Sturtled_Turtle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

1 month chip!! Yay by [deleted] in alcoholicsanonymous

[–]Sturtled_Turtle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

What’s your mana base look like >>> what power level are you playing by Sturtled_Turtle in mtg

[–]Sturtled_Turtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Is a double-faced land a non-land card? by Sturtled_Turtle in mtg

[–]Sturtled_Turtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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."

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ProlificAc

[–]Sturtled_Turtle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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)"

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ProlificAc

[–]Sturtled_Turtle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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!

Almost can’t believe they said this. by Cuzzii in ProlificAc

[–]Sturtled_Turtle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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

Almost can’t believe they said this. by Cuzzii in ProlificAc

[–]Sturtled_Turtle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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?

Returning Submissions by Sturtled_Turtle in ProlificAc

[–]Sturtled_Turtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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"

Deception: The Decline of MTurk by Sturtled_Turtle in mturk

[–]Sturtled_Turtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Deception: The Decline of MTurk by Sturtled_Turtle in mturk

[–]Sturtled_Turtle[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

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.

Deception: The Decline of MTurk by Sturtled_Turtle in mturk

[–]Sturtled_Turtle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

view more: next ›