In the past 3 months, Gaming has grown to be one of the largest sites in the Stack Exchange network. Skyrim boosted it into the big leagues in November, and now Mass Effect 3 is showing that that wasn’t a lucky, once-in-a-lifetime event but something that can be repeated.

Those events were mainly focused on our community, but we want to do more to reach outside. We’re experimenting with things like sponsoring a League of Legends tournament, and even thinking about having a presence at conferences like PAX. These attract users directly by driving people to our site, but they also get our name out there so that the next time these people search for a question and land on our site they remember us.

The main obstacle in these more marketing/advertising focused promotions has often turned out to be something annoyingly simple: we don’t have a name. As Oak observes:

Btw stuff like that really makes me wish we had a better site name and domain name! … it's a hard decision to make, definitely. But when our name / domain name start appearing in sponsorship context, it becomes critical. (source, source)

There’s no doubt about it: “Gaming Stack Exchange” is a mouthful. But worse than just being long, it’s not really a name -- it’s a description that says “We’re the Gaming section of Stack Exchange”. It’s a name targeted to people inside the network: “Oh, this is Stack Exchange for gaming? I love gaming!”. When we tell people about the site, we get one chance to communicate who we are and what we’re about, and we’re tripping on the first three words out of our mouths.

A proposed name

So we at Stack Exchange HQ thought a lot about this, and not without disagreement. Some people feel strongly that Stack Exchange is the brand, and promoting that brand will help all the sites. Others think that each site should have its own brand that speaks to its unique community. About the only thing we can agree on right now is that “XXXXX Stack Exchange” is not a brand -- it’s too long, descriptive, and forgettable.

A few of us who love gaming decided to see if we could come up with a decent name. We thought about what we wanted to convey: not just a site about gaming, since there are tons of those. We wanted to focus on what makes us different -- answers, high-quality content, game mechanics, etc.

So we brainstormed, we made lists, we contacted domain squatters, we argued, and we came up with one name that we really liked: Game Council. Why? On the surface, it’s short, it’s unique, the domain was available, and it spoke to the core of our identity: a group of gaming experts answering important questions.

"Council" suggests expert, high-quality advice. "Ask the Game Council" and "Join the Game Council" are catchy tag lines we can use to give a sense of what we do in just a few words. Becoming an expert "Councillor" conveys the knowledge-sharing and advancement that make the site work.

Wait, what? A domain?

Well, yes and no. Domains have been exceedingly problematic in the past and have big search implications. So for now we would only use gamecouncil.com to redirect to gaming.stackexchange.com, a la Ask Different. We would use gamecouncil.com in advertising and so on, but the site will still live at the same address. We’re hoping that this gives the site an identity without all the pain associated with changing domains.

What do you think?

So there it is: our best stab at a name. We’re not going to enforce it from above, because that’s silly: if it’s going to be the identity of the site, it has to be your identity. Obviously not everyone will like it, but if we don’t have a solid majority we’ll go back to the drawing board and start all over. We’ll work with the community -- do some polls, vote on names, etc -- and see if we can come up with something better.

Or, if you like the name, we’ll get started on it right away.

  • 8
    I really liked this tag line: "Join the Game Council" -- this has my vote! – juan Mar 16 '12 at 15:19
  • 20
    Would we be getting a UI overhaul to match the name? We would need to keep the lasers. – Invader Skoodge Mar 16 '12 at 15:20
  • 20
    As long as I can still use gaming.stackexchange.com to find the site, I'm happy and don't care what you guys call it (although personally, I think Game Council sounds a bit lame) :) – Rachel Mar 16 '12 at 15:27
  • 4
    Good luck finding something more awesome than lasers... now, if they were attached to sharks, we could talk. – juan Mar 16 '12 at 15:27
  • 12
    Is it me or does the name sound too much like 'game console' when read out loud? – Private Pansy Mar 16 '12 at 15:30
  • 11
    I like the idea. I do not like the suggested name, it's cheesy and sounds like a forum full of 10 year olds. – Shinrai Mar 16 '12 at 15:42
  • 5
    Yay Jedi Council ... not crazy about it but no suggestions at the moment. – Tharius Mar 16 '12 at 15:45
  • 8
    Yuck. I'd just like to state my strong opposition to all proposed names right now, most of them are extremely confusing, inattractive and cause problems for the same reasons as noted in the SE blog post you linked before: blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/10/domain-names-the-wrong-question – Ben Brocka Mar 16 '12 at 16:17
  • 11
    Also, since when is a council "YOU!"? They;re always generally very exclusionary organizations. Like those jerkbag aliens in Mass Effect. – Ben Brocka Mar 16 '12 at 16:35
  • 8
    @CruelCow They were attempts to propose site names, at 173 and 78 answers respectively, with a whole lot of opposition and lack of consensus. Essentially a mess. – Grace Note Mar 16 '12 at 17:37
  • 11
    Do we get to see the rejected names? – Eight Days of Malaise Mar 16 '12 at 20:27
  • 4
    was there ever a meta question where people could suggest names and the community could vote for the ones they liked? – l I Mar 16 '12 at 20:47
  • 3
    This question should be renamed Should I choose to save 'The Council' – Steve V. Mar 16 '12 at 21:09
  • 4
    Sees question title on the front page of meta Oh god, here we go again. – Brant Mar 17 '12 at 19:19
  • 4
    oh man, I really think Stage Six is a cool name. I even went out and registered StageSix.net and pointed it at gaming. Then I thought, wouldn't it be cool to make an icon? I know it's not high quality, but it was fun to try. I even overlayed it on the current gaming.se to see what it looked like: i.imgur.com/P0AED.png Not Bad for my poor Paint skills. Then I thought to myself, I could probably hack that into a chrome extension. So I DID! – tzenes Mar 21 '12 at 13:31

While I'm reluctantly agreeing that maybe Gaming could do with a brand on it's own, I think a major problem here is that our proposed brand is a metaphor that doesn't fit the site. A council is NOT an inclusive community, a democracy, a rep fight or anything like that. It implies there is this prexisting council of people that do something--and it still doesn't imply Q&A...sounds more like a review site honestly.

I think if the name isn't going to fit pretty close to perfect, a more abstract, but vaguely gaming related name would fit better. It's better for a name to vaguely invoke the topic matter and have people ask "Hm, it's a site for gaming, but in what way?" than for the name to evoke an incorrect assumption. We're not a council, we're a community, a democracy, a nation, a round table anything but a council/senate/closed group.

Councils are closed, Gaming.SE is not.

  • 5
    beep boop I love you. – user9983 Mar 16 '12 at 17:57
  • The problem with vaguely invoking gaming is that you'll get drowned out in the noise of, say, a conference, where everything is about Gaming. "Council" may not be the right word, but a vague gaming reference isn't going to catch anybody's attention. – David Fullerton Mar 17 '12 at 0:09
  • 10
    AND all the vague gaming references are taken. All of them. Okay, maybe not all of them...but all the good ones. – David Fullerton Mar 17 '12 at 0:10
  • 4
    With domains, if you can't get the right one, it is probably better to not have one at all. – Gabe Willard Mar 20 '12 at 16:21
  • 1
    Achievement Overflow? – fredley Mar 23 '12 at 16:26
  • @fredley sounds like a cheap rip-off of Achievement Hunter :P – Nick T Apr 3 '12 at 16:43

I think "Game Council" is pretty terrible, honestly. I do have some reasons:

  • The most immediate association that pops to my mind is the Jedi Council. I don't know of anything that has in common with this site, at least not without quite a stretch.

  • Other councils and councillors are stuffy and boring, and that association makes me think of gaming by committee and proscriptions about n00bness or something. What would a "Game Council" actually do, anyways? I imagine either something like the ESRB or game recommendations (shudder).

  • It sounds exclusive. "Oh, you haven't joined the Game Council and been admitted to the inner sanctum? Loser." I get that you want to convey knowledge and expertise, but I think this is way too far. We're talking about games.

    As anyone familiar with Meta knows I take the site policies and so on quite seriously, but the subject of the site is a recreational activity. We're not a forum and we don't do GTKY questions (etc.) but you're not going to get that across in a two-word name. Err on the side of something interesting!

  • Spelling may be an issue, given the current state of English on the Internet. As well, "Counsel" sounds the same and makes sense as a name, and as Yi Jiang notes it could reasonably be mistaken as "Console" by a listener if you're not much of an orator :P

Personally I don't feel that there is any aspect of this name that's superior to the current name apart from its length. If I were to remember it, it would be as "lol what a lame name". Yes, that's a bit juvenile, but I'm just being honest. And I'm not even a teenager :P

(I'm not going to propose alternative names here as I'm interested in seeing how the votes fall on these points.)

  • 2
    Do you have other suggestions in mind, even if you're choosing to not put them forth just yet? IMHO criticism + suggestion > pure criticism, but it's your call. :) – Adam Lear Mar 16 '12 at 15:53
  • 8
    @AnnaLear I haven't been thinking about names previously, having had no warning :P. I'll definitely do some brainstorming if we decide this isn't the name to go with, but this is just my gut reaction to something quite unexpected that largely reads as an "announcement", even if he did ask for feedback. – Matthew Read Mar 16 '12 at 16:01
  • 3
    I agree that constructive criticism is best (and I did explain and give usable info for guidance on a name) but I also think the onus is on the creator of a proposal to make a case for it. I can't say I buy into any of David's reasoning. This is just me, of course, and I'll live if we do use it ;) – Matthew Read Mar 16 '12 at 16:08
  • 1
    As a bigger Matrix fan than Star Wars fan, I thought first of that council in particular, haha. I'm still kind of neutral on this. I agree on the exclusive tone. I don't really want it to convey an air of exclusive elitism, as I have enough trouble as it is trying to dispel that impression with my friends. – FAE Mar 16 '12 at 16:09
  • 12
    I'd like to remind everyone that not changing the name is also an option... – Ben Brocka Mar 16 '12 at 16:19
  • 3
    Why not name it "Game Counsel", then? It's nice and friendly! – Cascabel Mar 16 '12 at 22:27
  • I actually like the Council/Counsel pun that's implied with the current iteration. – LessPop_MoreFizz Mar 17 '12 at 13:04
  • If the word "Council" invokes too many negative associations, in my opinion that's all the more reason to attach it to something as beneficial as this site and let it flourish. – VxJasonxV Mar 21 '12 at 18:28
  • 1
    @VxJasonxV So instead of trying to attract users and so on, we're a charity trying to help out poor, negatively-associated words? :/ – Matthew Read Mar 21 '12 at 18:35
  • Nice personification, @MatthewRead... Bad comparison though, IMO. – VxJasonxV Mar 21 '12 at 19:50
  • @VxJasonxV Well can you explain what you're saying, if in fact you're serious? Selecting a name with negative associations because it has negative associations makes no sense to me. – Matthew Read Mar 21 '12 at 19:59
  • @MatthewRead I am completely serious. A council is not inherently a bad word, which makes it feasible. Everyone has words they don't like from their own upbringing for their own reasons. Doesn't rule out the feasibility either. "Gang" is an inherently bad word that has been made better (occasionally) with the casual use of referring to a collective, generally, and with no ill intent. – VxJasonxV Mar 21 '12 at 22:08
  • @VxJasonxV Ah, so you're saying that associating "Council" with this site may have the arguably beneficial effect of lessening my negative associations with the word. Sure, maybe. Given the other responses here though it does seem that my associations are frequently shared; I'd prefer we pick something more likely to make a good impression, rather than needing time to grow on us. – Matthew Read Mar 21 '12 at 22:58

We’re not going to enforce it from above, because that’s silly: if it’s going to be the identity of the site, it has to be your identity

It sucks to say so, but if that's the team's attitude we're not going to go anywhere. Direct democracy has its limits and inertia is one of them.

Take the whole drama about the envelope. Was it the right move to archive the pointless indicator with the SuperCollider? Heck yes! Did it receive unanimous support? Heck no! If you were to read meta you'd think you'd have to be Jeff Atwood to like that abomination of a thing.

The team however stood firm and worked with the community on improving the feature, never backing off to the idea that the envelope perhaps should come back. And they were ultimately right.

Some things you can't crowdsource. Design is one of them, to quote one of Jeff's favourite examples. History shows branding also is.

At the end of the day:

  • We need an identity real fast before we get a lot of media attention on the LoL tourney and perhaps PAX
  • It doesn't matter if our name is anything short of perfect, given that we've managed to get a ton of traffic pretty much without a name at all.
  • We've already spent far too many resources (mostly time) on the topic, to the point where it would've probably been cheaper to simply hire a branding company to come up with something in our place and accept it simply because of the pricetag.
  • Game Council is a pretty good name that might need some time to grow onto us until we like it; even if we don't end up liking the name, we can simply take the redirect down and change it again. Personally I like it, but it wouldn't be the first time I like something most don't.

Take "Joystiq". It's a kludge. It's impossible to spell right the first few times. Who uses joysticks anymore anyway? It sounds like the maker of a handheld controller company, not a news site.

Does it matter? No! People don't read Joystiq because of the name, they do because of the content. You can have the best name in the world, the best domain ever and still fail terribly because of the content. We have the content! We just need a name.

Coming up with silly domain names is idle fun but it won't get us anywhere, nor will consensus. Don't leave this to consensus and just be bold about it. Please.

  • 3
    The problem with the envelope was that it was far better than what it initially got replaced with. – Ullallulloo Mar 16 '12 at 17:06
  • 7
    'We've already spent far too many resources (mostly time) on the topic' ... this may be true, however, to a user who wasn't here in 2010 this seems very much like an out of the blue decision – Tharius Mar 16 '12 at 17:27
  • 1
    @Stephen It doesn't make it any less true :) – badp Mar 16 '12 at 17:37
  • 2
    @badp No, but I didn't dispute it's validity. Just a reminder that not everyone was here for these discussions, that the past discussions aren't available for everyone to read (2 of those links are 10k or dead) and if it's not a decision from upon high being imposed and the request for feedback is sincere then a modicum of discussion should probably be encouraged. – Tharius Mar 16 '12 at 17:40
  • You said everything I wanted to say but couldn't figure out how to. – Invader Skoodge Mar 16 '12 at 18:18
  • 9
    Well said. I'm OK with them boldly picking a name and going with it ... but a good name please :P – Matthew Read Mar 16 '12 at 18:53

Of course I agree with my own quotes that choosing a name is critical at this point. I also agree with most posts here and I'm not too fond of the proposed name. But I also agree with badp that this is something which doesn't have to be crowd-sourced. Am I fond of the proposed name? Not too much. Do I think it will actually make anything worse? Absolutely not. Will having a name make things better for our marketability? I believe so.

I do have another suggestion for an alternative naming approach, though. David laments that so many gaming tropes are already taken. The ones that aren't are often controversial, as the voting in the old name-suggestion question indicates.

Instead, I propose choosing a nonsensical word as our site name and domain name. Something not from any language's dictionary, but possibly giving some connotation of the gaming concept. Going with something like that might be less controversial and a good name can be very memorable, Googlable, and won't compete with anything else online. This approach also works for many other brands (including Internet-centric brands such as Google). It does have drawbacks, of course, such as being less consistent with naming of the other Stack Exchange network sites, but I do believe it can work in the long run, especially if we go with something which is vaguely "game-ish".

I don't want to suggest anything specific here because I don't want to turn this into a name suggestion - that's not the right thread for that; I just want to raise this suggestion to see what others think of it. Just to be clear - I would have liked a meaningful, gaming-related name - I suggest this approach as an alternative because we apparently have difficulty deciding on anything meaningful.

  • 1
    It certainly fails to address the "clear sense of identity" idea. If the name can be anything, and it doesn't matter, maybe it should be nothing. If we can't project some semblance of what we do with the name then how is it any worse to just leave gaming.se in place? – Tharius Mar 20 '12 at 12:37
  • 1
    @Stephen I don't actually see why it would fail that "sense of identity" thing. But regarding leaving gaming.se - that's the worst option of all, in my opinion. Because when you say "sponsored by gaming.stackexchange.com", it's a mouthful. Because when you go to a conference and give out stickers saying "gaming.stackexchange.com", it appears as though the URL part is there but the name is missing. Because when I recently told my friend about this site, I told him to find it by searching "gaming" with "stackoverflow". I could not expect him to remember "gaming.stackexchange". – Oak Mar 20 '12 at 12:49
  • 1
    @Stephen to give a more concrete example: "welcome to the gee gee classic tournament, sponsored by gaming dot stack exchange" or "welcome to the gee gee classic tournament, sponsored by gamigo". I think the second option sounds infinitely better - I don't think anyone will bother searching for the first option, while someone might for the second. Just using "gamigo" as an example, I don't think it's particularly good and I don't even know if it's available. – Oak Mar 20 '12 at 13:18
  • 1
    What's the most popular website? Google. A nonsensical name is fine too. – kotekzot Mar 20 '12 at 15:45
  • 1
    @kotekzot Googol is the mathematical term for a 1 followed by 100 zeros. The term was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner, and was popularized in the book, “Mathematics and the Imagination” by Kasner and James Newman. Google’s play on the term reflects the company’s mission to organize the immense amount of information available on the web.” It's not nonsensical. – Tharius Mar 21 '12 at 0:52
  • @Stephen perhaps I've chosen my adjective poorly, but googol and Google are about as related as gaming and Gamigo (which, I think, is a massive improvement on Game Council). – kotekzot Mar 21 '12 at 1:07
  • 1
    @kotekzot Gamigo is a massive improvement. Sounds like Game Amigo ... if that's the case, it's still not nonsensical. – Tharius Mar 21 '12 at 1:16
  • 1
    @oak Perhaps my objection here is the word nonsensical ... something like Gamigo isn't too bad especially if meant to imply game friends ... game amigos ... but then it's whimsical rather than nonsensical. – Tharius Mar 21 '12 at 1:17
  • @Stephen I concur. – kotekzot Mar 21 '12 at 1:20
  • 1
    @Oak how about putting Gamigo into your answer to give it more visibility? It sounds increasingly awesome. – kotekzot Mar 21 '12 at 1:34
  • @kotekzot I was just giving it as an example, I don't want this thread to turn into a thread for name suggestions. A quick check reveals it's not available in any case. – Oak Mar 21 '12 at 5:21
  • I am heartbroke. – kotekzot Mar 21 '12 at 12:16
  • @Stephen yea I also prefer something reminiscent of "game" or any other gaming concept - I tried to explain that in the 2nd and last sentences of the 3rd paragraph, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. – Oak Mar 21 '12 at 16:20

I think Game Council is okay, not great, but I agree with badp in that this is just going to turn into an opportunity to bikeshed names if left to the community. If you guys like Game Council, let's use it.

I do, however, strongly object to the position line that comes with the name:

Game Council is not just a name, it’s an identity that speaks to what makes this site great: YOU. You, the users (dare I include myself?), are the Game Council. When you join, you’re just a neophyte, a noob, a lowly acolyte of the Council. As you prove yourself, you rise in the ranks. If you’re good enough, you become a Councillor, with all the rights, swag, and privileges thereof. Your friends will sense that something is different about you. “Join the Game Council”, you’ll tell them. “Prove your knowledge. Help the noobs.”

That's not our identity, and it's not an identity I want to support or be a part of. I'm not here to condescend to people who don't know as much as me or use it as a means to get phat loot. I'm here to get answers to my questions and share some info I might have to others. It's a collaborative experience, not a parasitic one.

Position statement was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek and has been removed, so objection is removed. Yay, peace and love!

  • 5
    Ugh, it was supposed to be very tongue-in-cheek, not serious. I've edited it out. – David Fullerton Mar 16 '12 at 18:12
  • @DavidFullerton Whew. You should know SEers are very literal minded by now. :P – user3389 Mar 16 '12 at 18:18
  • 2
    @Mark yes, I don't know what I was thinking. I should have written the whole thing much more defensively – David Fullerton Mar 16 '12 at 18:19

Well, yes and no. Domains have been exceedingly problematic in the past and have big search implications. So for now we would only use gamecouncil.com to redirect to gaming.stackexchange.com, a la Ask Different. We would use gamecouncil.com in advertising and so on, but the site will still live at the same address. We’re hoping that this gives the site an identity without all the pain associated with changing domains.

This is really essential and should be at the top of the post.

Naming is beyond difficult, it's basically impossible. But this solution gives us the best of both worlds, in my opinion.

  1. It offers a more memorable, shorter name for people to use as a shortcut when talking about the site or mentioning it online.

  2. We want people to see "stackexchange" in their Google (or insert other theoretically important search engine name here) search results pages and associate Stack Exchange with getting high quality answers to all their questions, not just those about gaming.

Point #2 is basically the entire purpose of Stack Exchange, so having a solution that preserves that is critical. Otherwise we'd be harming the network in the medium to long term. Network sites should live in harmony with the network, and help support the mission of the greater network as well as their own mission.

The proposed solution (whether it ultimately ends up being "gamecouncil.com" or something else is not so important) does that, and achieves #1, so I support it.

  • 1
    yes, I realize that the SOFU "trilogy" is a deviation from this plan, but they also represent a much earlier, and somewhat obsolete, view of the mission. If nothing else, the idea of 10+ sites with 10+ different domain names is utterly broken, and I wish we had learned that earlier. – Jeff Atwood Mar 24 '12 at 21:38
  • Attention Jeff Atwood. People don't care about the quality of Gawker. They care about the quality of Kotaku, and ummm... Well, ok, I don't really know any of their other sites. But that's my point. (Consumerist and Jezebel? I think?). Holding onto Housing Block E1153 is really doing a disservice to the communties. – VxJasonxV Mar 27 '12 at 21:30
  • Who cares about CBS? People care about GameFAQs (... I think) and Last.fm. Who cares about Aol? People care about TUAW and Joystiq and TechCrunch. Remember how sites forked out to PandoDaily, and The Verge, and exploded in popularity? Individuality and content is MORE important. – VxJasonxV Mar 27 '12 at 21:33
  • I'm sorry for laying the comments on thick, but the mobile site doesn't have a character count, and you should know by now I have a lot to say on this matter. Nothing To Install was a mistake (maybe), but you learned the wrong lesson. You turned tail and ran from the idea learning that "SE everywhere!" is better, which I think is simply horribly wrong. *.stackexchange.com URLs simply suck. Please realize that. – VxJasonxV Mar 27 '12 at 21:35
  • @vxj continuing with that logic (and I'm not saying I disagree) the proper solution is to buy stack.com or another great short top level domain -- this will take many millions of dollars as there's another live business at that domain. Also, note that the "gawker network" doesn't have 80+ sites and doesn't have sites that are 100% user generated, but editorially.. – Jeff Atwood Mar 27 '12 at 22:17
  • If you think you have to buy stack.com, se.com, or any other single all-encompassing domain, you still very clearly do not understand. – VxJasonxV Mar 28 '12 at 0:45
  • @vxj see my comment above about gawker. Do they have 80+ sites? Are they all 100% user generated content? No and no. Since they live and die by the editorial content a few editors are generating, they have very different needs and serve different purposes. A few kickass editors can make an entire site work, in the same way I personally make codinghorror.com work. It's a very different thing. – Jeff Atwood Mar 28 '12 at 4:46
  • Coding Horror is your brand. Stack Overflow is your shared brand. Gaming has no brand, except some boring "Stack Exchange" name tagging along for the ride. Stack Exchange is not a brand, it's a company. All of these examples are not a "very different thing", not one single bit. Communities have an identity, denying that, or replacing it with this generic brand does nothing but water down your ability to advertise and flaunt the site. "hi! I'm from Stack Exchange's gaming stack". Really? Honestly? "Hi, I'm a member of the Game Council!". Do you see the difference? Size is irrelevant here. – VxJasonxV Mar 28 '12 at 7:43
  • This argument of "scale" is confusing and utterly nonsensical. Stack Overflow is many times larger, has a very significant identity (more significant than the name stack exchange), and what's the net result? Oh right, a magnificent site and thriving community. – VxJasonxV Mar 28 '12 at 7:45
  • @vxj if you feel so strongly about, it start your own brand -- like the gawker, verge and others you keep citing, all it takes is one committed person/editor to make it work, if you're good enough (or perhaps 2-3 committed editors producing content). What we have here is 100% community generated content. If you want to commit to doing it all yourself under your own brand, go for it, and godspeed! – Jeff Atwood Mar 28 '12 at 8:13
  • Go my own way? Honestly? That's your answer now? Way to ignore everything I've said and just turn tail and suggest that. I like Stack Exchange, and feel strongly that I'm doing this for the sake of Stack Exchange at large, not the least of which includes Ask Different that I want to see rise in popularity dramatically, preferably to the levels of success Gaming has reached with the last few promotions, and more. I am well aware that I will not make a better site than Stack Exchange, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I never once said a name/brand is all you need. – VxJasonxV Mar 28 '12 at 18:53

I know this isn't the popular opinion but I absolutely loathe Game Council. To me it carries a connotation of committee, governance and bureaucracy. At best it rubs as a shout out to the Jedi Council (which was a bureaucratic committee for governance).

I'd rather see something like Gaming Savant or (sorry Strix) Game Authority or something that conveys action and confidence than something that conveys debate. The definition below in 1 is clearly the only one that fits with the intent, yet, the other meanings are so clearly in common use to be reasonable interpretations.

coun·cil   [koun-suhl] noun

1.an assembly of persons summoned or convened for consultation, deliberation, or advice.

2.a body of persons specially designated or selected to act in an advisory, administrative, or legislative capacity: the governor's council on housing.

3.(in certain British colonies or dependencies) an executive or legislative body assisting the governor.

4.an ecclesiastical assembly for deciding matters of doctrine or discipline.

5.New Testament . the Sanhedrin or other authoritative body.

If the motivation is to rush something through before the press takes notice then perhaps the discussion should have occurred before the sponsorships went out.

Anyways, just my $0.02

  • 1
    "an assembly of persons convened for advic[ing others]" isn't this exactly what we are? – badp Mar 16 '12 at 18:38
  • @badp "The definition below in 1 is clearly the only one that fits with the intent, yet, the other meanings are so clearly in common use to be reasonable interpretations." – Tharius Mar 16 '12 at 18:41
  • 1
    @badp Additionally we have not been summoned nor convened for this purpose, we are a loosely knit group of individuals who share a philosophy of being helpful. – Tharius Mar 16 '12 at 18:45
  • We have originally convened, though, through the Area51 system and then through people joining us along the ride. – badp Mar 16 '12 at 18:53
  • @badp It's a stretch but I'll accept that. Which brings us back to ` the other meanings are so clearly in common use to be reasonable interpretations`, especially to an outside observer. – Tharius Mar 16 '12 at 19:36
  • @badp Not all of them carry baggage. – Tharius Mar 16 '12 at 19:56
  • 3
    "To me it carries a connotation of committee, governance and bureaucracy." Having seen meta, it's perfect! – Merus Mar 17 '12 at 8:47

I think having a name is better than not having a name, even if that name isn't the absolute best thing you've ever heard.

All this can do is strengthen our identity and make us more memorable. I'm not going crazy over this particular name, but it's not a bad name either. Most importantly, I like the idea of having a name.

So I support this name. Do it.

  • 15
    We as a community will never agree on anything. – Invader Skoodge Mar 16 '12 at 15:47
  • 1
    No group of people ever agrees 100% on anything, but we still vote on questions and mods and hash things out on Meta and so on. I think the majority should be OK with the name, at least; I don't think the fact that it is a name is enough to say it should be the name. I agree it doesn't have to be the best ever or anything though. – Matthew Read Mar 16 '12 at 16:04
  • 3
    @MatthewRead We are particularly un-agreement-able (whatever; it's a word now) here, though. – Invader Skoodge Mar 16 '12 at 16:06
  • Ha, I totally agree with that :P. The controversy here is unbelievable sometimes. – Matthew Read Mar 16 '12 at 16:09
  • 8
    For something like a name I think more than a simple majority should be required. Maybe we can agree on GamingNeverAgrees.com – Ben Brocka Mar 16 '12 at 16:28
  • While it's true communities don't like to agree on anything, it seems that most people (including myself), while vaguely in favour of a new name, are against the specific name including the word "Council". Sure, we shouldn't make it an open ballot for another name, but surely we could try to find one that isn't as objectionable to so many people? – Gwen Mar 30 '12 at 8:11

We can't have a name now, aren't you forgetting all our social media are named according to our current name, unless you can talk to Youtube, facebook, steam and twitch.tv about changing our names, (all the others can be changed) about changing our name on those media I think this will be a bad idea.

  • 2
    This is definitely a problem. At least for Steam we can simply move the group from one account to another with the correct name, then send invites over to the newer group. – badp Mar 16 '12 at 17:42
  • 2
    Considering it's only a redirect and not an actual domain, when people are browsing around the site, they'll still see G.SE, which should be recognizable. Especially since all the groups are unofficial anyway (and have to be) it shouldn't take too much for the community to adapt. – FAE Mar 16 '12 at 17:46
  • We talked about this in chat, but Stack Gaming can still refer to the unofficial community. It's not like you can use the official name on any of this, and there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason why the one thing that already has a name needs to change. – user3389 Mar 16 '12 at 17:49
  • 3
    Do we have a sense of how much our social media actually impacts traffic? I thought I read something a month or two ago about how our social media wasn't "official" anyway. In other words, is this actually a serious problem that's going to impact more than a handful of people? – Sterno Mar 16 '12 at 17:53
  • You don't have to talk to these, it's simply a matter of periodically informing your viewers (Facebook / YouTube / Twitch.tv) that you have changed to another name, you'll want to aim on getting the majority of users over and not each of them. Just changing the name from higher up would lead to some confusion. Posting a video or some bulletin every X days will do just fine... – Tamara Wijsman Mar 17 '12 at 7:13
  • GamingSE seems to be a good part of our current Signature. I think we should keep it like it. Or change the site to gamingse.com – Fredy31 Mar 25 '12 at 3:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .