CTL isn't a clan ._.
The individual teams are clans.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=327149

This thread is a bit outdated since Diamonds were added and there are a few more games each round.

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

June 20 2013 20:34 GMT

huh, cool. We might have to hop in there at some point.

What other things does your clan do?

ninazerg

United States7291 Posts

June 21 2013 03:35 GMT

This clan doesn't sound fun at all. Especially the weird rules about appeals to authority and rational discussion. Why not just add the rules "Do not commit Gambler's Fallacy", or "No Begging The Question", or "Don't Appeal to Nature", or "Reductio ad Hitlerum is not allowed"?

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

June 21 2013 03:56 GMT

This clan doesn't seem like its for you nina.

Salivanth

Australia1071 Posts

June 21 2013 04:32 GMT

#10

Normally I'd let this one slide, but as someone who linked to LessWrong, you should know better, Jakatak. You didn't bother to answer Nina's questions at all, and just said it's not the kind of clan they'd like. Essentially, the message is "If you have any concerns about this clan, this clan is not for you." That doesn't exactly seem like a rational way to deal with criticism. There's got to be a fallacy for that one, even though a name doesn't spring to mind. "You don't like X, therefore X isn't for you. There can't possibly be a problem with X." This can be a reasonable argument if X is popular, but your clan is not. For instance, if I don't like chess, it's very likely chess just isn't the kind of game for me. But if I don't like your game that you're playtesting, maybe there's a problem in the design. And your clan still is in the beginning stages, like my playtest example.

In addition, linking to LessWrong when mentioning rational discussion raises more questions than it answers. Do you require your members to read some or all of the Sequences, or parts of them, in order to be shown as committing to rational discussion? If so, which parts?

All in all, the clan's goals seem rather unfocused. You seem to have three goals:

Have nice players. Fair enough.
Play casually, with stuff like the triathlon and trolling people in team games. Okay.
Have your members demonstrate an awareness of common fallacies and rational thinking. Wait, what?

It seems to me that the latter goal would be worthy of a clan on it's own, but placed with these other goals it just seems weird. And discussion of what? What audience is the clan meant to attract? It seems meant to attract people who are both amateur Bayesian rationalists and casual SC2 players who enjoy team games and FFA. That's...a really narrow audience.

And yet, despite this, you name your clan with your own name, thus implying the clan is for fans of your work. When I saw "TheJaKaTaK Clan" my very first thought was that it was a clan about the Staircase and the Core, but it doesn't mention that once. All in all, it just seems rather unfocused as a goal.

ninazerg

United States7291 Posts

June 21 2013 05:39 GMT

#11

On June 21 2013 13:32 Salivanth wrote:

Have nice players. Fair enough.
Play casually, with stuff like the triathlon and trolling people in team games. Okay.
Have your members demonstrate an awareness of common fallacies and rational thinking. Wait, what?

Haha, that's exactly what I was thinking.

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

June 21 2013 15:28 GMT

#12

Fair enough.

Regarding ninazerg's post. I responded to it in the way that I did because I found nothing particularly compelling or constructive about his argument. Appeals to Authority are the #1 fallacy we (the clan) find in Sc2 arguments so we thought it was worth mentioning specifically. Perhaps it is redundant with commitment to rationality over emotion. ninazerg mentions that the clan doesn't sound "fun" at all, which is not our primary goal. The purpose is to assemble a group of people that will work together to make Sc2 more fun and less frustrating, partially through work and discussion on tools like TheCore and TheStaircase, and partially through offering coaching and guidance. Which, to me, is fun. But I don't think that, based on this post, ninazerg would find this particularly fun.

I am looking for a specific group of people. Perhaps linking lesswrong was too specific. I will attempt to reiterate:

I am looking for people to discuss and debate new and existing ways to improve player's Sc2 experience. Part of this is the actual discussion, and part of this is going out and finding people to help. As well as offering a base at which players can seek out help.

I do am looking for people who are interested in rational discussions. People who are comfortable admitting when they are wrong and analyzing their own biases. Not people who can do these things 100% of the time, but people who are trying to.

I do think that this is a very narrow audience. My intention is not for this clan to be popular, but to be effective.

Ghin

United States2391 Posts

June 21 2013 15:42 GMT

#13

You know there's no j in ninazerg, right?

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

June 21 2013 16:29 GMT

#14

hahahhahaha! Completely missed that

EDIT: fixed it

It seems as though I've entered the land of many posts. So many high post TL accounts here. Why do you think that is?

ninazerg

United States7291 Posts

June 22 2013 05:25 GMT

#15

On June 22 2013 00:28 JaKaTaK wrote:

ninazerg mentions that the clan doesn't sound "fun" at all, which is not our primary goal.

So having fun is secondary to...

The purpose is to assemble a group of people that will work together to make Sc2 more fun and less frustrating, partially through work and discussion on tools like TheCore and TheStaircase, and partially through offering coaching and guidance. Which, to me, is fun. But I don't think that, based on this post, ninazerg would find this particularly fun.

So your primary goal isn't to create a fun environment but, rather, to create a fun environment? WHICH IS IT? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

TFS

United States53 Posts

June 22 2013 05:59 GMT

#16

Just chiming in to say that an appeal to authority is not inherently fallacious. As the link you provided in the original post states, the fallacy only occurs when the authority is not deemed to be an expert on the subject or is not in some other way qualified to make claims regarding the subject. So simply saying "No appeals to authority" is nonsensical.

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

June 22 2013 10:42 GMT

#17

@nina
Having fun is secondary to helping others with their frustrations so that they can have fun.

@TFS
I agree, and will amend the OP. Thanks

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

June 22 2013 11:26 GMT

#18

Concerning helping others with their frustrations:

We've encountered an issue making the Saturation Speed less dependent on strategy. Working on this now LIVE. Feel free to stop in and try to take a crack at it:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374400&currentpage=51