Why not? What do you find advantageous to call yourself instead.
I do not call myself a programmer around consulting clients because I charge much more money than my programming skills can justify. Most of them do not need a title to understand my skill set, since they asked for me in the first place, and to the extent I have one it is as "the guy doing X for us" (X is usually a combination of programming and marketing).
"Founder" isn't too big in Japan, so I usually introduce myself as some variant of "Owner of a company." It is ridiculously superior to "programmer" in terms of social status and sets me up for an automatic conversation topic (given my age and pallor, "How the heck did that happen!?" is a common one).
Don Knuth's title is "Professor Emeritus of the Art of Computer Programming". If "programmer" is good enough for Knuth, then after two decades of writing software, I aspire to be worthy of the title.
"Make users happy."
Pac-man?
They do this not because it affects their productivity negatively (they have even less of an idea about their individual productivity than you do), but rather because it is a hit to their familiarity, and an easy rallying point to demonstrate their "consumer identity" to others. Facebook has gotten the most unlucky with this kind of problem (I think because Facebook's core 15-25 demographic are the most likely group to protest, riot, and generally shout at things), but Google has it nearly as bad, being the "front page" of the Internet to many.
1. You're providing too many knobs and dials at each step in a workflow (see the TED talk[1]; solving this is basically where UX design and game design merge into one field),
2. Or there is a certain minimum level of strategic thought required for your business process, and you've removed all the "ruminance gaps" that allow users to have those strategic thoughts while believing that they are working. Instead, they have to just sit there and look unproductive while they ruminate, which creates stress. (You can also cynically call this the "users don't really want to do their jobs, so the more bureaucracy, the better" problem—but it still applies even to the most dedicated workers.)
You can solve the first problem with a re-design, but the second problem is actually a social one, related to how people are perceived, and how they perceive themselves, while working, and needs to be solved at the company-policy level.
As for easter eggs—I would say that it isn't your job to entertain your employees. You shouldn't be paid for releasing features which don't contribute to overall productivity (though, of course, you can do it anyway, on off hours; and keep in mind that increased morale has the same sort of effect on productivity that advertising has on brand-building.) But, on the other hand, it's also not your job to make sure that your users aren't entertained. Instead of releasing easter-egg features, perhaps just install some good games (not Minesweeper) on their workstations, and let them relax that way. Again, company-policy issue.
[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch...
How about a game that rewards employees for completing work tasks? Like, for every customer-reported bug triaged or minute of audio transcribed, you get x gold to spend in the game. Maybe even integrate the work tasks into the game, like that old Atari game where you had to send the right meal orders to the right tables -- show categories as buckets, and bugs as falling descriptions. Earn in-game rewards by correctly categorizing bugs faster than the average.
Heck, if someone wants to work on this idea, I'd probably put my current project on hold and join them.
I don't hack, crack, or (verb)script-kiddie, so I won't refer to myself as a hacker, cracker, or script-kiddie.
SC1: yo dog, long time
SC1: still haxoring Wordpress modules?
HNer: naah man, WP is gey
HNer: I am busy hacking Supply and Demand
SC1: wtf? the economic model?
HNer: yeah, making something people want
-- SC1 has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving.)