Generally the second generation coins go beyond being merely money. Features include voting, asset exchanges, text messaging, digital shops, escrow and other automated transactions. The idea is for these things to be implemented in a distributed, de-centralised, trust-free yet secure way, using block-chain technology.

Calling them "second generation" is, I think, relatively uncontroversial. Calling them "Bitcoin 2.0" is controversial, because they typically don't have much to do with Bitcoin other than using a block-chain as a means of distributed consensus. Many of them also use "Proof of Stake", which is very different to the Proof of Work that Bitcoin is founded upon. However, that doesn't mean they are scams. Most of them are proud of being their own thing, and don't want to appropriate the "Bitcoin" name, although it can be a convenient short-hand when talking to people who have only heard of Bitcoin.

Some say that to warrant the name "Bitcoin 2.0" they must be a fork of the original Bitcoin block-chain (but not necessarily a fork of the source code). I don't care.

The real question here, in my view, is not over what a new sub-forum should be called, but whether it is worth having separate sub-forums to separate the coins with wholly new source, from ones which are essentially based on the Bitcoin source.