To all followers of these proposals:

I'd like to direct you to Board & Card Games. B&CG is a StackExchange site that is up and running where your questions are definitely on topic and very welcome.

Let's work together to build one large good site. Several of those proposals have been open for a very long time. B&CG has been open since October. In my opinion, thats a lot of time that we could have been working to build a community on an existing StackExchange site.

StackOverflow manages to survive with both vi and emacs enthusiasts. Not to mention C#, java and perl. I'd like to believe that the various game communities can thrive in close contact as well.

A common objection that I've seen is that expert level players of various games will not join a mixed community. As far as I can tell, that is just conjecture and hasn't been backed up or attempted. For all I know, it could be right. But here's the thing, B&CG is a smaller site. Currently we're getting a couple questions a day. If a new community shows up, and brings a dozen questions on, say, Chess ... well, it's sure going to look like a chess site!

  • 5
    @Ricket: You can "like it" by clicking this little star next to the vote count. No Facebook integration, though. Commented Apr 8, 2011 at 5:58
  • 8
    I am a Go and MTG player and asked/answered several questions considering these games on Board & Card games successfully. Although I considered following the specific proposals for those games, I did not do so because I consider Board & Card games to be the better place for those questions. The specific boards seem like overkill to me.
    – Demento
    Commented Aug 20, 2011 at 16:15
  • 4
    Unix&Linux is already covered by SU. AskUbuntu is already covered by SU. I see no logical reason why this isn't a valid proposal. I think at the end of the day the people complaining are scared of losing traffic (MTG is very big).
    – nopcorn
    Commented Sep 23, 2011 at 20:33
  • 9
    I disagree. If it's something that you spend years paying practicing, reading books and going to tournaments it probably deserves separate site. Commented Oct 13, 2011 at 8:52
  • 2
    Posted a MTG question on B&CG to test the waters and was really impressed. Got lots of excellent answers and learnt a thing to two. Commented Jan 23, 2012 at 18:43
  • @ThunderHorse - Great to hear that! MTG is now the most popular game on B&CG and the answers seem to come quickly and accurately (although my knowledge of MTG is 10 years old, so my ability to judge that must be tempered some!)
    – Pat Ludwig
    Commented Jan 23, 2012 at 18:47
  • I checked out the Board and card games site, absolutely no questions on Chess! Commented Feb 10, 2012 at 11:52
  • @BinojAntony - you didn't look that hard then. 50 chess questions so far.
    – Pat Ludwig
    Commented Feb 10, 2012 at 15:41
  • @BinojAntony why not create some yourself? :p
    – rahzark
    Commented Feb 16, 2012 at 13:42
  • 1
    @Pat - Yes there are 50, but none on the front page! Commented Mar 6, 2012 at 8:25
  • @BinojAntony - wrong again. There are 3 chess questions currently on the front page. 53 chess questions total now. The questions are all about a week old, I didn't just add them to make a point. Chess is not the most popular game at B&CG, but it does get discussed regularly.
    – Pat Ludwig
    Commented Mar 6, 2012 at 15:22
  • Undeleted for historical purposes (meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/722/…)
    – Shog9
    Commented Jun 3, 2012 at 17:33
  • How about Dungeon and Dragon on rpg.stackexchange.com ? It's included here? Commented Jun 23, 2014 at 8:02
  • @SeptianPrimadewa - D&D belongs on rpg.stackexchange.com, B&CG does not handle any role playing games although the line can get a little blurry between RPG and B&CG at times.
    – Pat Ludwig
    Commented Jun 23, 2014 at 18:50

8 Answers 8


These proposals are really already covered by broad games or roleplaying games, they should all be closed.

Allowing these sites to continue will have 2 results

  1. Users will be confused about which site to participate in, hurting both sites and proposals.
  2. These proposals are too weak and there is not enough interest to generate the questions necessary for survival. So these thin proposals will probably fail in beta.
  • 4
    I contend you will not attract a community of expert and enthusiast poker players to a site that is not dedicated to poker, as I explained in my post. It might not have enough support here due to poor advertising (so it might very well fail in beta), but that doesn't mean it should be part of B&CG at all. Commented Apr 9, 2011 at 17:23
  • 11
    @MichaelMcGowan: You maybe right, but I think there would be the signs of a loud and vocal audience on B&CG before the need to create a separate poker site arose. It maybe that the poker community doesn't know that poker questions are allowed there and once more questions have been asked the community can begin to follow. Commented Apr 9, 2011 at 17:29
  • 8
    Let me direct you towards the flaw in your statement: draw3cards.com. THIS is proof that a separate site is needed for MTG. And no, I don't think users will be so confused that they post their Monopoly questions on MTG SE.
    – nopcorn
    Commented Oct 14, 2011 at 2:40
  • This should include the poker SE, which is already in beta Commented Mar 17, 2012 at 15:48
  • MaxMackie makes the main point here. MTG is a game of sufficient complexity and breadth such that a StackExchange site, with it's awesome categorical and organizational power, would be something well harnessed and quite useful. To suggest that it could be relegated to a single topic on B&CG is to call yourself out as having never even played the game. Commented Mar 18, 2012 at 2:37
  • 1
    @sweaver2112 - uh I don't think my position "To suggest that it could be relegated to a single topic on B&CG is to call yourself out as having never even played the game.". Uh I've won small poker tournaments before buddy, so I think you should focus on the topic rather than ad hominems. Commented Mar 18, 2012 at 6:01
  • I did slightly misread the post, as MTG is included in a wider group. Allow me to redact: Magic shouldn't be included, it's far more complicated than chess OR poker. (6 unit types, 13 card types, how many distinct magic cards?) Commented Mar 18, 2012 at 6:18
  • "mtg is far more complicated than chess" lolwut Commented Mar 20, 2012 at 14:55
  • 1
    As a general rule of thumb, BlueRaja, if you can write the rules down on a notecard, it's a relatively simple game. This doesn't mean it's an easier game to master, of course, which is how you incorrectly interpreted that statement. Commented Mar 21, 2012 at 17:14
  • @sweaver2112 - Wouldn't a game that is more difficult to master be the game that is more likely to need its own site? Honestly, if people would just read the massive rulebook for MTG, then 90% of the MTG questions on this site, draw3cards.com, and just about any other site would not need to be asked. Add in the additional resources made readily available by WotC, and that probably gets most of that remaining 10%. A SE site shouldn't be used for things people can answer if they just RTFM. Commented Apr 9, 2012 at 16:25

Poker actually refers to not one game but an entire class of games. There are dozens of variants (notably Texas Hold'em, 7-card stud, 5-card draw, etc.). Furthermore there is a distinction between limit and no-limit, tournament and cash games, online and live, and low-stakes and high-stakes. Those are the analogs to C# and Java, not chess and poker. Experts in Texas Hold'em might know very little about 7-card stud, but they don't mind sharing a community. Occasionally the hold'em player might also have a question that the stud player can answer (much like a C# user could help me understand the design patterns I'm implementing in Java).

Poker shares very little in common with the other games. Sure at the abstract level they are games that involve strategy, skill, and practice. However, they do not have much overlap in the communities. You might say that "poker" is on topic at B&CG, but what about a question on range-balancing pre-flop in high-stakes heads-up no-limit Texas Hold'em?

Sure there might be a "poker" tag B&CG, but that is not remotely sufficient for a community of expert and enthusiast poker players. Such a community would need to be able to tag the same question with all of the following hypothetical tags: "fixed-limit", "hold-em", "cash-game", "$10-$20", and "pre-flop". Having those tags (or something similar) would be necessary for a community of expert and enthusiast poker players, but they would seem rather silly (and unwanted) on B&CG.

Imagine if we started StackExchange from scratch without StackOverflow, but there was an SE for "Computers". I feel the analog to what you are doing is telling us that questions tagged "programming" are welcome at the "Computers" site. How do you expect to attract the Jon Skeet's of the world will to your "Computers" site just because you have a "programming" tag? Do you really think having tags for "C#", "OOP", and "generics" is appropriate at a "Computers" SE? Of course not...you need to create StackOverflow. That's what the poker proposal is.

Of course I expect people to respond to this by pointing out that everyone thinks their community is different or special.

EDIT: As a follow-up, I checked out questions tagged "poker" on B&CB. There were 11 such questions, and I would break them down as follows:

  1. 4 questions about basic definitions of terms
  2. 2 questions regarding some basic rules
  3. 1 discussion question
  4. 1 closed question
  5. 3 somewhat basic questions but beyond elementary definitions

Those I suppose are on-topic for B&CG, but the in-depth questions that would attract experts are not really on-topic for B&CG.

Bottom Line

If you want to have a place for people who currently use Stack Exchange to ask an occasional novice poker question, then B&CG would work for that. If you actually want a community of expert and enthusiast poker players, including many who are not already part of the Stack Exchange network, then in my mind the only chance of that happening is with a dedicated poker site. That absolutely will not happen at B&CG. Telling the poker players to join B&CG is useless; I doubt they care whether or not B&CG succeeds. Those arguing for one site either do not understand the poker community at all or they are more concerned with having B&CG succeed than what would be a sensible division of sites. If Poker fails as a site of its own that's fine, it means we didn't recruit well enough. That it might fail on its own does not mean it should be subsumed into B&CG.

  • 21
    Thanks for the response! The Poker proposal is less than a third of the way there after five months. While you are waiting why not use B&CG where Poker is currently the 10th most tagged game? As you noted, the questions may not be expert level, but it would be awesome if you or other experts could contribute better answers. All I'm saying is to try it out. Make the world a better place with better poker answers (and questions). It looks like you have some time before the Poker SE fires up.
    – Pat Ludwig
    Commented Apr 8, 2011 at 5:03
  • 4
    There's no reason for expert and enthusiast poker players to ask in-depth questions on B&CG. There might be an odd poker expert or two there, but I know there are tons of experts at say twoplustwo.com...a site by and for poker players. The SE network offers some things that 2+2 doesn't, so there could be reasons for experts and enthusiasts to visit a poker-specific SE, but I don't see why they would leave 2+2 to go to B&CG. Commented Apr 8, 2011 at 5:21
  • Well, I share the same sceptics as Michael about Advanced Squad Leader. But I'd say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The uselessness of the generic tags for games with a broad "vocabulary" is still a strong argument against, in my opinion.
    – Rogier
    Commented Apr 8, 2011 at 18:26
  • 27
    As if Poker has more depth than most other card games. The only difference is the amount money at stake when playing. I think its getting rather tiresome that every 'community' believes they need a site of their own to succeed, without any proof of it having failed first or a critical mass to follow through.
    – Ivo Flipse
    Commented Apr 10, 2011 at 5:24
  • 10
    @Michael - your comment indicates that you think the distance between 2+2 and PokerSE would be less than the distance between PokerSE and B&CG. I have a hard time believing that. SE sites are quite distinct from traditional forums. I think moving people from a forum to an SE would be the most difficult part. Whether the SE is specific or generalistic is less important. That aside, how are the answers to the poker and poker-texas-holdem questions on B&CG? Could you improve them?
    – Pat Ludwig
    Commented Apr 10, 2011 at 5:39
  • @Ivo You say we have no proof of anything...well B&CG has existed for almost 6 months, and the poker questions there are terrible if you are going for the "expert and enthusiast" crowd. As I outlined, most of them are incredibly basic, and the few that an expert might bother taking time to answer aren't the kind that would attract an expert to the site. Commented Apr 10, 2011 at 19:56
  • If the proposal were specifically for "Texas Hold'em" then that would be too specific. You have done nothing to even try to convince me that "Poker" is not the correct breakdown, and I made the above arguments regarding a sensible tagging system. Now it might well be that "Poker" fails to attract enough users to form a site of its own, or it might be that SE Q&A format does not work well for poker (something I debated with myself before committing). That's fine, but we can let the community figure that much out. Commented Apr 10, 2011 at 20:00
  • 16
    @Michael I believe that's mostly because some users have a similar attitude, like yours, where they simply don't want to ask any better question. I'd say lead by example and ask or answer a poker question in a way you feel would do Poker right.
    – Ivo Flipse
    Commented Apr 10, 2011 at 20:01
  • 4
    I think the real issue might be that B&CG is actually too broad. You've lumped together several mostly unrelated things into what your scope is. As a result, paradoxically you don't have enough true experts. If the site is failing due to lack of traffic, the solution is not to recruit people from largely unrelated topics. Poker players have no interest in whether B&CG succeeds or fails, so I don't think your efforts to recruit them will be fruitful. Commented Apr 10, 2011 at 20:02
  • 10
    I think you'll find that directing poker players to B&GG will eventually fill it with true experts. I foresee a similar situation to Starcraft 2 on gaming. Yes, experts are needed to answer questions about specific things. No, that does not mean it doesn't belong there. Even if half the question are about Starcraft 2 they still fit in with the rest of the site's content and they are now answered by experts on the site.
    – Sadly Not
    Commented Apr 13, 2011 at 16:24
  • 3
    @thethinman Starcraft2 is one game; poker is a family of games generically referring to literally dozens of variants. Those variants each have different classes of game within them (cash/tournament, limit/NL, etc.). You can't just tag a question "poker" (or even "poker-texas-hold'em") and expect fruitful results. Some of poker questions that weren't terrible were tagged with more meaningful tags to indicate this, but those were actually removed by someone at B&CG. So apparently the community does not want to foster an environment for asking detailed questions. Commented Apr 13, 2011 at 16:37
  • 1
    @Pat Although the system has the ability to do that, the specific instances I'm referring to were a result of humans (boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/98/… and boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/109/…). If it's not possible to tag a post as referring to something as fundamental as a "Sit and Go Tournament" (as was attempted and changed by a real live human member of the community), then the site will be pretty pointless for all but novices. Commented Jun 13, 2011 at 16:34
  • 5
    I've committed to the Poker proposal, and I've been visiting B&CG for a while. I agree that Poker has more depth than, say, UNO, and a Poker-specific SE isn't outside of the realm of feasibility, but the arguments I'm hearing here are unfounded opinion. Lack of participation in one SE is not justification for creating a more specialized version; rather, the opposite holds true. The way to tell if a topic needs to have its own SE is if questions on that topic dominate a more general SE. The idea that "poker experts will only participate if all other games are excluded" is a fiction.
    – Beofett
    Commented Nov 4, 2011 at 18:18
  • 2
    @MichaelMcGowan Nice use of reductio ad absurdum.
    – Beofett
    Commented Nov 4, 2011 at 19:31
  • 4
    @Michael Card games have as much if not more in common than the topics on Stack Overflow. Poker is a family of very closely related games - just as Lisp or languages which run in the .net CLR might be considered families of programming languages. Perhaps there's an argument for a card game SE site, but I personally think Poker is too specific. The claim that Poker experts won't use a site with a broader topic is mere speculation; you have no idea why Poker experts aren't using B&CG heavily, you only know why you aren't using it.
    – Draemon
    Commented Nov 5, 2011 at 1:16

Ignoring the question whether those sites should be seperate or combined for a moment, at least for Go and Chess there are also technical reasons why the current B&CG site is not as attractive for those games as it could be.

Many questions and answers about those games require some way to show board positions and movements. You can of course create those using external tools, but many users probably don't know how that would work.

Without an easy way to include such board positions and moves, using the site for Go & Chess questions is somewhat cumbersome. If the site should attract more Chess & Go players, integrating some software solution for that would be a good first step.

  • 4
    meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/425/… A reasonable suggestion. If this could be done for a Go or chess SE, I see no reason why we couldn't use it for B&CG. If you know of the exact software needed, please drop it on the linked meta thread. Thanks for the suggestion!
    – Pat Ludwig
    Commented Apr 11, 2011 at 15:18
  • Along those lines, a hand history convert would be helpful for Poker.SE as well. Commented Apr 12, 2011 at 2:35
  • 1
    Just thought I'd update for anyone reading this that Go board diagrams (Sensei's Library style) are now implemented on B&CG. Commented Jan 3, 2012 at 8:50

Before you mentioned it, I would never have considered a board game or card game site to be a place for discussing chess specifics. And I still do not agree with you. I know a lot of people interested in all kind of chess activities (studies/problems composing, tournament chess, opening theory, history etc), that would consider board games to be mere childrens' stuff. I have both played chess in tournaments and board games for sheer fun, and IMHO most of the time I dealt with two different kind of people and mindsets. I truly doubt a board game site will attract a lot of chess players, many of whom have dedicated literally years of their time to just this single game.

My impression is that a person describing himself as an avid board gamer will be proud to have played 1000 different board games, while most avid chess player will boast to have played 1000s of times the same single game (chess!). So the target audience for a chess site and a boardgame site does not match well (except maybe for chess beginners' questions of which I do not have any need to ask or discuss).

  • 3
    I could say the same thing about go. Things like Chess, Go and Bridge are not board games, they are mind sports. It's not something you play with your friends and family for fun, it's something you spend years playing, reading theory, going to tournaments... I have no interest in participating on the board games site, but I am interested in dedicated Go site Commented Oct 13, 2011 at 8:46
  • 2
    @Slartibartfast - I play Go and Chess for fun with friends and family... do you not?
    – warren
    Commented Oct 26, 2011 at 22:32
  • @warren: I don't! As they are only casual players, they are no match and it's no fun for them nor for me. There is a huge gap between club players and casual players. That is exactly the difference between such games and boardgames and the reason why a q&a site for boardgames won't be useful for chess (or go) players.
    – Ray
    Commented Oct 27, 2011 at 9:49
  • @Ray - funny, I've competed in pro/am chess tournaments, and play for fun: I find I can do both :)
    – warren
    Commented Oct 27, 2011 at 12:37
  • @warren: It's not about not having fun (I do have fun playing chess), but about lacking strong chessplayers among your friends and family. I don't know about your USCF or Elo rating, but either yours must be pretty low or your friends don't mind losing constantly against you. Unless you recruit your friends from the local chess club! I wanted to emphasize the point that you can play nearly all boardgames with friends and family with everyone(!) having a good chance at winning... - this is just not true for chess.
    – Ray
    Commented Oct 27, 2011 at 13:10
  • An interesting stat to wonder about 36.1% of users have committed only to this(chess) proposal. Commented Mar 6, 2012 at 8:23
  • @Ray - you clearly have not played any of the types of boardgames discussed on B&CG. Almost no good boardgames that the true enthusiasts play fall into "you can play nearly all boardgames with friends and family with everyone(!) having a good chance at winning". We aren't talking about Monopoly and Candyland here, buddy. Commented Apr 9, 2012 at 18:07
  • @Charles Boyung: Don't be so snub to people you don't know, just because you disagree with them... Indeed it is my experience that you can play most of the boardgames I know of (and I own 1.800 myself) with everyone having fun and the outcome being unclear during most of the playing time. There are exceptions (like my beloved ASL), but come on, I checked the B&CG site: Do you truly mean Carcassone, Forbidden Island or Stone Age - just to pick 3 of the board games that where discussed at the front page there - are so hard to master that no one stands a chance against you? Really???
    – Ray
    Commented May 2, 2012 at 7:08

I've read all the possible arguments about having a general QA site or a single topic QA site.

As a GO game fan and player (living in China, playing everyday), I'm interested in participating in any one of them, but choosing which one is difficult.

General QA site (board and card games)


-It's already in beta (thus with a lot of committers)

-Game of Go is tagged and awaiting for a community to use it

-If you play GO as well as other board games, you don't need to register to subscribe to other websites. You have everything in 1 place.


-It's really about any board games, if you don't play more than 4 different kinds of games you will find the site boring to death and go see somewhere else.

-It will probably not attract experts (?)

General QA sites work because 1 person is always interested (or even expert) in 3 or more topics. (on stackoverflow, very few people look at only 1 tag, that's why it works.) On B&CG I personally haven't heard of 1/10th of games being discussed there.

Specialized GO game QA site


-Experts will participate and will be eager to make it work

-Great SE platform


-Can we solve the SGF/diagram problem in posts?

-Other experts sites and forums exist and have A LOT of informations, a huge community and lots of people ready to answer.

-Do we need another site about GO and start documenting everything over again?

-Most answers to GO questions on B&CG are simple links to SL, that would be sad to have all answers on a dedicated site pointing outside...

The nature of people is such that when they're really into something they want their little home/playground just for them and their peers. A SE go game site would be cool, the format is different, there's reputation points and badges to earn. Lot of potential to setup a great GO community.

I'm committed to this proposal (maybe for the reason above when I think about it...) and I try stick to it although my mind tells me it's useless and bound to fail and it's using up 1 commitment point that I would like to use ;)

My answer is:

I'm really attached to this proposal but if the 160+ committers to this proposal would actually use the available tag and existing community of B&CG that might probably work. If you think about Board&Card Games as the Stackoverflow of board games then there's no reason it wouldn't work.

We might even attract new players to the game which is the best thing we can give to the GO community, thing that no other website can do!


I removed my commitment to this proposal. This kind of forum format cannot and will never be able to support correctly a deep game like GO. B&CG is enough if you have a basic question, for the rest ask live on kgs, L19 or SL you'll get a professional answer. Starting a new community is useless and a huge waste of time.

  • 3
    I completely agree with your conclusion. Commented Apr 29, 2011 at 17:04

Disclaimer: This is sarcasm. It is intended to point out the absurdity of some of the arguments presented here.

I disagree. I think that there's no way that board games and card games can possibly manage to support more than one variety of game. Just look at StackOverflow: it's way too general, and it's turned out to be a huge failure. The topic of "programming, algorithms, and tools for programmers" is just way too broad. The small tags like Lisp never get any good answers because they're overwhelmed by the popular tags like C#. And it's too hard for big things like C# to exist there, because they can't create all the subtags they need, and none of the C# experts want to go there, because the site is cluttered up with all these other languages.

And if you're still not convinced, just look at the B&CG beta. There's all these MtG questions there, and they just sit there abandoned, while everyone complains all the time about how there aren't any experts there to answer them.

  • It is a false dichotomy you are posing: while it may be true that people will be inclined to go for SO when lisp.se or funcprog.se does not exist, the same does not hold true for B&CG vs some specific game (out of literally hundreds of others) that already has a set of functional online communities. The importance/significance/necessity of having a Q&A site following SE format (which may be more harm than good) for these subjects is quite overstated.
    – prusswan
    Commented Feb 23, 2012 at 8:40
  • 1
    Just look at StackOverflow: it has spun off into the entire StackExchange franchise, but more specifically, it was spun off into SuperUser and WordPress SE and ServerFault and a bunch of other SEs of higher specificity. So the precedent is definitely there.
    – Tom Auger
    Commented Apr 18, 2012 at 18:36

It's not so much a pride issue but more a matter of practicality for me. This is too general a site for chess, for which many specialized sites have already established (like chessgames.com, talkchess.com) that are not bound by the Q&A format to exclude banter and discussion, only question being whether a chess.stackexchange.com is needed on top of them (I committed to it but I don't really care if it gets started in X years). It will come if enough people are interested but at this point it is definitely neither a need nor priority.

I also agree with user34666's assessment of the situation.

Edit: For Chess, it might work if SE is able to convince/pay a few grandmasters to participate, but they are unlikely do it at B&CG (which is fairly absurd for them considering alternatives more worthy of their time outside of SE).

PS: Why are there only 2 Pokemon TCG questions after more than one year? I reckon the reasons are not too dissimilar.

  • 1
    Try out B&CG, use the chess tag to filter the questions you want to see. Heck, just spread this link around to your chess friends, and they won't even see the other questions.
    – Pat Ludwig
    Commented Dec 29, 2011 at 8:26
  • 2
    But we don't need to. To put it plainly, we are not desperate enough for a Chess SE to prop up B&CG just for the advancement of that single purpose. B&CG is of no interest unless a google search leads to it.
    – prusswan
    Commented Dec 29, 2011 at 8:31
  • 2
    I'm just trying to be helpful. B&CG is growing rapidly and isn't in need of any "propping up" either. If you want to participate, I can help show you ways to do it. If you don't, that's cool too. Many folks believe in the power of the SE engine over traditional forums, it is to those folks I'm trying to get the message out to.
    – Pat Ludwig
    Commented Dec 29, 2011 at 8:37
  • 2
    I understand, I am just trying to explain why it is not attractive to existing audience for such topics.
    – prusswan
    Commented Dec 29, 2011 at 8:37

Not only is this covered by another board, the proposal is a subset of player which would continue to overlap the other board. It seems to be a move to sluff off non-tourney players.

You must log in to answer this question.

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