That really sounds like an unnecessary constraint. It’s not as if the only thing people are going to hear about the organisation is the name; presumably they’d also hear something about what it does.
One friend of mine said that it was confusing not just because he didn’t know why it was relevant, but because the word “Waterline” has no strong positive connotations.
The name should be meaningful or at least not confusing to the general population.
That really sounds like an unnecessary constraint. It’s not as if the only thing people are going to hear about the organisation is the name; presumably they’d also hear something about what it does.
In my view, a name that doesn’t need to come with an explanation is worth more than a name that makes for good in joke.
False dichotomy. “Meaningful names are better than in-joke names” is not the same thing as “the name must necessarily be meaningful”.
Why?
One friend of mine said that it was confusing not just because he didn’t know why it was relevant, but because the word “Waterline” has no strong positive connotations.
If the goal is to promote rationality, it seems counterproductive to have an offputting name...
“Waterline” isn’t off-putting, just opaque. So are things like “Oxfam”.
Waterline makes me think of Landmark, seasteading, and Bond villains trying to drown the planet.
Don’t forget Sea Org!
.
Waterline makes me think of The Watchtower, Wedge Strategy, and Blackwater USA.
I dislike opacity, myself. Also, I find “Oxfam” transparent.
I expect it to be slightly off-putting. I could be wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKk8w7HRyMg