Kratz wrote:I think maybe you are taking your gaming and gaming sites too seriously. Or maybe you are just making an argument
The latter. I refer to the following line only a few sentences further into my post: "from the point of view of someone already on the inside, so to speak, and who knows the origins of the names, both make considerably more sense, and neither cause me any grief."
But that doesn't change the fact that as long as we're going to have this discussion I think it's legitimate to raise the childish nature of the names as a concern. One of the appeals of GG was the at-times erudite nature of the discussions. Especially in what is now Religion & Politics, some very high-level discussions (for an internet site, at least) could be had. I don't think either of the names under consideration are going to prepare any new visitors to the site for that sort of discussion. Brutesquad, as it has been called repeatedly, is adolescent humour, and Octopus Overlords sounds so absurd it belongs in Monty Python.
Again,
I have no problem with either of these names, but my point remains, as above, that neither will do a very good job of attracting some of the types of people that GG had. Both, I think, cater to a particular segment of our population, but not the whole of it (I doubt, honestly, that it would be possible to choose a name that would attract the full breadth of GG's former diversity).
With GG, though, the name was always an academic issue: we could never change it, so there was no point in discussing it. Here, though, we have an opportunity to shape the site from the ground up, so it's worth debating what kind of image the site's name should convey (or even if it needs to convey anything: as above - again - I'm still not certain if anyone knows whether the primary criteria for choosing the name will be to satisfy existing members, in which case the image matters little; or to attract new ones, in which case it matters a great deal). Assuming we do care what kind of impression the site's name gives to new visitors, we first have to decide what kind of visitors interest us.
I think it's relatively safe to say that neither Brutesquad nor OctopusOverlords will, through name power alone, draw myself or RM9 new debate partners for discussions of politics & morality. Brutesquad would be good at rounding up strayed GGers, while OctopusOverlords, through its sheer enjoyable lunacy would like draw the kind of generally happy-go-luck crowd that hangs around EBG.
So, assuming repetition brings clarity, I will say again that neither/any name affects me much: my perception of this site will always be primarily coloured by my past experiences with it, not the name on the door. But to anyone new, the name is the first thing they'll see, and will consequently greatly affect who gets beyond the front page.
I called the proposed names childish not as a slam against them, but as a factual statement of their nature. Brutesquad hardly screams "ivory tower"; OctopusOverlords hardly screams "computer gamer". They are both whimsical, childish names. That is not inherently a bad thing: EBG thrives on that kind of entertainment, and both of those names would likely be a long-term boon to that community.
But the bottom line is that they are names that benefit EBG, and before anyone goes so far as to actually change the URL, I think it's worth having a high-level discussion over whether or not that's the direction in which the site wants to go (versus choosing a name that draws in gamers, or political philosophers, or satanists, or bunny worshippers - or any other crowd we might wish to cater to).
- Ash