ForumsNews and Feedback[Official] What is a Knight?

404 55682
Ferret
offline
Ferret
9,285 posts
Constable

'Knighthood': What is a 'Knight'? And what does 'Knighthood' mean?

'Knighthood' and the title 'Knight' is bestowed upon a user that has shown exemplary deeds and outstanding behavior as a member of the Armor Games Community. This exclusive title is only granted to those users that have earned a special place among the citizens of the Kingdom.

How do I become a Knight?

Care about the community and other users and catch the eye of moderators or admins, they are the ones who choose who is Knighted. Don't ask to be Knighted, that's a good way not to be Knighted.

What can Knights do?

-They have access to a Knight-only Forum.
-They have access to Knight-only armatars
-Special forum coloring and badge.
-Knight Gilding

I'll add more to this sticky if there are further Questions.

  • 404 Replies
Zophia
offline
Zophia
9,453 posts
Bard

Currently, blessed users are more or less to knights what knights are to moderators - users granted an honorary title. Blessed users gain a quest. Knights gain the small perks (a special forum, fancy forum appearance, beta test access). This is congruent with knights having less ~power~ than moderators - those they deem worthy do not get quite as shiny rewards as those the moderators deem worthy.

What value would you like to see the title of knighthood hold in the future? It is currently vaguely defined, and while it is unlikely that we will significantly alter the process of knighting users, constructive criticism is good.

For the record we do have somewhat of an "I chose to bless this user because X" list for knights. I'm not sure what the value of making it public is, though, and the team would need to consider it. Could you provide some reasoning as to why having it publicly available would be a good thing?

Suggestions like "knights should be active role models in the community" and "knights should have mini versions of mod powers" are valid but would be significant changes from the current state of things. Would you want users who have been knighted due to things like previously being a moderator demoted and blessed instead? Perhaps a "moderator's blessing" instated for a slightly more official blessing (as knight blessings seem to be fairly scattered)?

PS: Did you see how you argued in opposite directions on whether the influence is minimal or not? It's kinda funny.

SirLegendary
offline
SirLegendary
16,315 posts
Marquis

As I've said, it's been brought down to the point of glorified beta-tester, sadly.

We aren't just glorified beta-testers, as Zophia said, we can't tell you everything, but I assure you, we aren't just that. Though we aren't hiding that much.

-in their profile, in the "knight" discription, put their reason for knighting there.

I have to agree with this one, if knights are supposed to be roll models for users, this would give users a direction in good deeds, after all, how do you build a plane without a blue print. I guess the way to becoming a knight is much too vague when it's explained in the OP here.

@pangtongshu In a way, I agree with your suggestions, they seem very reasonable.

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,868 posts
Scribe

Could you provide some reasoning as to why having it publicly available would be a good thing?

I have literally constantly been doing that. In fact, my whole argument for why knights have become meaningless is based off of it.

significant change from the current state of things

Creating the knights was as much a significant change as any...so stating that it would be a large change as some sort of deference really means nothing, at least for me.

deknight ex mods and bless them

I think there is merit in that idea..or maybe create a separate class just for the ex-mods (sort of how knights started).

we aren't glorified beta testers

Then what are you? Officially, that is. Those in charge of the operation haven't given anything to deter the idea otherwise..in fact they seem to be in a sort of blind aggreance of it, due to the constant argument of "knights don't hold any power" without then providing any necessary statement to give this system any value of worth other than a shrouded game of favoritism.

they seem very reasonable

I'm not trying to bash knights or the idea of knights..quite the opposite. I'm arguing for the knights, for a system that works. The current system is not working.

-----

Please excuse my lack of direct quoting. For some odd reason, on mobile, about the right 1/4 of my screen has an invisible ad that will send me to another tab for some ad click dealio..so quoting can end up being impossible for me unless I'm willing to retype what you said ver batum, which I'm not willing to do.

SirLegendary
offline
SirLegendary
16,315 posts
Marquis

I'm not trying to bash knights or the idea of knights..quite the opposite. I'm arguing for the knights, for a system that works. The current system is not working.

I actually understand that what you're saying. As a knight myself, I don't want to be looked at as a glorified beta tester, I want to be respected for what I have done, or what I am doing. Your arguments make sense and I can see your point of view, and in all honesty, they are very logical arguments. I'm not trying to side with anyone here, I'm trying to look for what may be best for the position and image of knights, which @pangtongshu 's suggestions actually do.

Knights should be roll models, that means people should know how they were knighted.
Knighthood (which was argued very well by Matt) seems more like a promotion, instead of an award (which is what the blessing is for, though it needs more value to it). Knights should have more functionality that even users, can see. But yes, knights do have more functionality that sometimes users can't see.
Transparency in government seems to please citizens, so we (knights and +) should also be more transparent to regular users.

All opinion. I believe that some of the suggestions posted here should really be looked at, they make sense. It's hard to argue against it at this point.

Zophia
offline
Zophia
9,453 posts
Bard

Awh, gonna have to do a quote wall. But concise posts. D: And yeah, that mobile layout thing is incredibly annoying.

I can't really put it any more specific than I did in my previous post.

Question was not specifically directed at you, but your desire for more active community presence being a qualifier for knighthood has been noted.

Because at times we don't know why and we don't prefer to just "take your word for it."

Is there any particular reason for the apparent resentment over being asked to "take our word for it"? Has there been reason to distrust the decision making of the team, aside from the oversight of Verwaltung's activity?(Genuine questions on my part; I've been back on AG for only slightly more than a month and while I am reasonably in the loop by now, I don't know how the last year or so has gone down in detail. My apologies for this.)

Can you provide some reasoning as to why keeping it private is a good thing?

I'll ask the team. Personally I'm mostly on board with letting (at least) the primary reason for a users upgrade to knighthood be known.

I have literally constantly been doing that. In fact, my whole argument for why knights have become meaningless is based off of it.

A concise summary would be nice, if you can be bothered. If not, fair (question stands for anyone to answer).

Previous moderators are inactive and therefore have no need of benefits, so Knighting them does nothing for either them or the community. I suggest demoting and blessing the lot of them, with their name and the reason being stated in the "What is a Knight's Blessing?" thread. They deserve recognition for being a moderator, and if you really think about it, the best award would be an award, not a promotion.

More or less in agreement with this too.

I see you've both mentioned not really caring for "this is significant change" as a reason for things being as they are, but hopefully you can accept that it may be the reason things don't really change, even if suggestions are acknowledged. Everything takes time and effort.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

-make the decision of a decision that *mod 1: I like this user he is nice* *admin1: k* *mod 2&3 kick sand at mod 4*
I'm not sure I'm reading this right. What's mod 4 supposed to be doing?

Can you provide some reasoning as to why keeping it private is a good thing?
I mentioned a while back that stating the reasons for their promotion could easily result in all sorts of riff-raff pestering mods and admin with "I also did [whatever knightly deeds someone did], so why didn't I get chosen?". Unless they get what they want, this may lead those users to feel that they are being unfairly treated or ignored. It should at least be indicated that whatever reason is provided is not the sole minimum requirement for knighthood.

I suggest demoting and blessing the lot of them, with their name and the reason being stated in the "What is a Knight's Blessing?" thread. They deserve recognition for being a moderator, and if you really think about it, the best award would be an award, not a promotion.
I don't see why this would be worth doing. The fact that they aren't around to use the paltry benefits of knighthood is not a valid reason to revoke that title, nor are they being promoted by the receipt of this title, as it is lesser than their original title of modertor (or, in some cases, admin).

Is there any particular reason for the apparent resentment over being asked to "take our word for it"?
I think the point is that the reasoning behind the decision should be obvious enough that they don't have to. Verwaltung was probably unknown to most of the community up to this point, so there isn't really much that can be done to rationalize his promotion. It makes no sense to trust in a seemingly arbitrary or capricious system such as this.
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,809 posts
Justiciar

I don't see why this would be worth doing. The fact that they aren't around to use the paltry benefits of knighthood is not a valid reason to revoke that title, nor are they being promoted by the receipt of this title, as it is lesser than their original title of modertor (or, in some cases, admin).

My thoughts exactly. Don't look at it solely from a perspective of functionality. The "Knight" title is not just a rank with privileges, it is primarily a reward and an honorary title. So just because previous mods don't use the benefits doesn't mean they should only get the blessing. Exactly because of what they've done for the site, they deserve the knighthood.

But then what differentiates a knight from a blessed user?

The main difference the way I see it is the effort put into the achievement itself...at least currently. Not saying that I support this!

Then what are you? Officially, that is. Those in charge of the operation haven't given anything to deter the idea otherwise..in fact they seem to be in a sort of blind aggreance of it, due to the constant argument of "knights don't hold any power" without then providing any necessary statement to give this system any value of worth other than a shrouded game of favoritism.

I will have to disagree here. Maybe your standards for knighthood are too high. In fact that's what I tend to believe. And high Knighthood standards is a different point altogether.

I agree with you that new knights should be or have been more than fairly active. But this is taking it a bit too far. Why do you think that they are glorified beta testers? Even with your doubts about the system of Knighthood, beta testing is somewhat irrelevant...how did you think that?

The knight title should be given to someone who, besides having done something noteworthy for the community, is still doing things.

Not necessarily but on most of the cases yes. I would suggest this being nullified if said Knight was very active in the past, like in the case of old mods, or very active users who did perform admirably, even though they are inactive now.

In conclusion: Like I said, activity is a requirement for Knighthood in my opinion. Verwaltung's knighthood does appear to be a bit vague and undeserved. Do I trust the mods on it? For now yes, but if Verwaltung doesn't become an active member at least now (because he never was), then it was truly poor judgement.

SSTG
offline
SSTG
12,981 posts
Templar

It's sort of been building. Recent Knights have shown up with no explanation. One of the earlier ones was CourtJester, who never made an appearance in the Knight thread (I think he's a CTC builder who spends all his time in that thread/area). I had never heard of him. Neither had several other people.

CourtJester has been helping and welcoming new builders in the CTC series and he has always provided good feedbacks about website issues as well as Flash issues. Since he's not very active in other forums, it's normal for most people not to know about him. That is why Mods and Admins are better placed to render a decision than most of the users who don't have all the facts. Also keep in mind that AG is a game site and the priority is gaming. The forum is a bonus that was given to the community.
weirdlike
offline
weirdlike
1,305 posts
King

Pointing fingers at neutral knights and making evaluations about their performance is a poor way to prove any kind of point. This kind of negative activity really decreases the overall morale, and is my strongest argument against demoting knights for this reason.

weirdlike
offline
weirdlike
1,305 posts
King

Knights are real people, singling any one of them out and scrutinizing what they do (especially if they haven't done anything wrong), is a complete defamation. Don't think for one second I would allow that for any users on this site. If you have to prove a point about inactive knights you can use them as a whole without pointing any single individual out.

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,809 posts
Justiciar

But we are not pointing any single individual out. The users here are unhappy with the knighthood system as a whole. We just used Verwaltung'a case which is the latest to prove our point and we didn't even say anything bad about him. All we said about him is that he is and always was inactive while we believe that activity, past or present is a requirement for knighthood.

weirdlike
offline
weirdlike
1,305 posts
King

I was making a general post directed to everyone, to avoid singling out individuals. Its unhealthy and unnecessary.

To shed a little light on defamation... yes it fits the bill exactly, while a user is singled out simply for being a knight then is scrutinized, is the action of damaging the good reputation of someone.

This business with verwaltung has allowed for leniency concerning him personally, and is not to be used as smoke and mirror to single out other users.

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,809 posts
Justiciar

I agree it is not but I don't see anyone using this case that way.

R2D21999
offline
R2D21999
18,314 posts
Templar

I don't see anyone using this case that way.

So while the hooplah over what's his face is going on is anyone going to explain why sirlegendary was knighted?
I imagine the answer is going to involve his forum activity? Fine and dandy given me a month and I'll spam forum games too.
-pangtongshu page 31 post 6.

Surely this is a joke, no?
-pangtongshu page 32 post 3. He's replying to "king of count to 100"

One of the earlier ones was CourtJester, who never made an appearance in the Knight thread (I think he's a CTC builder who spends all his time in that thread/area). I had never heard of him. Neither had several other people.
-MattEmAngel page 40 post 9
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,809 posts
Justiciar

1) There is nothing wrong with the last quote and 2) both pang and Matt have already apologized for their behavior and anything that may come off aggressively. Sorry for not quoting but I am posting this from a mobile device.

Showing 346-360 of 404